1 cr-apeap-361-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2010 WITH CRI.APPLICATION NO. 632 OF 2010 Ashok Pundlik Deore ] Aged about 35 years, ] R/o Kharchi Budruk, ] Taluka Earandol, Dist.Jalgaon ] (Presently lodged at Nashik Road ] Central Prison, Nashik) ]..Appellant (Original accused) Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] (Through A.P.I. Panchavani ] Police Station) ]..Respondent .... Mrs. Nasreen S.K.Ayubi Adv. for Appellant Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 04, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The appellant has preferred this appeal through jail. 2 cr-apeap-361-10 2 The appellant-original accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 8th October, 2008 in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1 Nasik. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 363 of IPC and he was sentenced to RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default SI for one month. He was acquitted of the offence under Section 366-A of IPC. 3 The appellant has also preferred Cri. Application No. 632 of 2010 wherein he has prayed for bail. 4 I have heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the judgment and the evidence produced by the learned APP. 5 The prosecution case is that the appellant kidnapped a minor girl Jyoti from the lawful guardianship of her mother with a view to compel her to marry someone or to force her or to compel her to illicit intercourse. There is no material to show that the accused took Jyoti with a view to compel her to force her to marry someone or to compel her to illicit intercourse. However, the evidence on record does show 3 cr-apeap-361-10 that accused took Jyoti aged about 11 years to Malegaon S.T. stand. From there, he took her to some other place. 6 The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the maximum sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 363 of IPC is seven years and the appellant has been awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment. She submitted that this is not a case wherein imposition of maximum sentence is called for. She further submitted that she does not wish to make any submissions on merits and she is restricting her submissions to quantum of sentence. She prayed that instead of maximum sentence which has been awarded under Section 363 of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to three years. The learned APP was also unable to point out any aggravating circumstance, due to which maximum sentence is required to be imposed. There is no material to show that the appellant is involved in any other case. His conduct in jail has been good. Looking to all these facts, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER 1) The conviction of the appellant under Section 363 of IPC is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three 4 cr-apeap-361-10 years imprisonment. The fine amount and in default sentence is maintained. 2) Appellant be released on serving out the remaining sentence if not required in any other case. 4) Appeal is partly allowed. 5) Cri. Application No.632 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. 6) Order be communicated to the appellant who is in jail. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]