( 1 ) crap162.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant [original complainant] Versus 1. Prakash Navnath Rasal .. Respondents Age. 26 years, Occ. Agri., [original accused] 2. Anjana Navnath Rasal, Age. 46 years, Occ. Agri., [deleted as per order dated 03.12.2010] Both r/o. Washi, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for the appellant. Mr. B.A. Dhengle, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 14.12.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. By this appeal, the State seeks enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent. The respondent was held ( 2 ) crap162.04 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned 4th Adhoc Asstt. Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. He along with accused No.2 – Anjana were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count. They were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that the judgment of the learned Adhoc Asstt. Sessions Judge was challenged by way of appeal. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment to the extent of the respondent, but acquitted original accused No.2 – Anjana, while partly allowing Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2004. The First Appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence awarded to the respondent. 3. The only material question to be determined in this appeal is – Whether the sentence awarded to the respondent is too inadequate and deserves enhancement, having regard to the seriousness of the crime proved against him? ( 3 ) crap162.04 4. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State and learned advocate for the respondent. Perused record and proceedings. 5. It is admitted fact that the respondent has not challenged the order of conviction and sentence by way of appeal. The learned advocate for the respondent makes a statement that the respondent has undergone the substantive sentence awarded to him. He further makes a statement that the respondent is now released from the prison in the month of November, 2010, after completion of substantive sentence. Learned Advocate Mr. Dhengle would, therefore, submit that enhancement of the sentence will cause serious impact on the respondent’s present domestic and social life. The learned A.P.P. points out, however, that the First Appellate Court observed that the office is of anti-social nature. He argued that such a short term sentence ought not to have been awarded to the respondents. 6. It may be gathered that the learned Sessions Judge of the Trial Court took somewhat lenient view for the reason ( 4 ) crap162.04 that the respondent was then 25 years old and moreover he was required to attend his aged father. The appellant being the only son of his parents, he was required to shoulder family responsibility and as such somewhat lenient view was taken while awarding the substantive sentence. 7. Much water has flown from under the bridge after the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was rendered. The alleged incident pertaining to suicide of deceased Rekha took place on 12th January, 2002. After nearly nine years, it is improper to reconsider the quantum of sentence, particularly, after the substantive sentence is served by the respondent. I mean to say that there are no strong reasons to direct re-arrest of the respondent and put him behind the bars by awarding more substantive sentence. 8. In Mohd. Hoshan and another V/s. State of A.P. (AIR, 2002 S.C. 3270), the Apex Court was pleased to reduce the sentence which was already undergone by the accused, in view of the peculiar fact situation. In para 8 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under :- ( 5 ) crap162.04 “8 ........................ The High Court, in our opinion, was right and justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC. We find no good reason to interfere with the same. However, we think it just and appropriate to modify the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone and order accordingly having regard to the fact that both the appellants were in imprisonment for about two months; the incident took place on 9-3-1988; the appellant No.2 is the mother of the appellant No.1 and she is aged 60 years; both the appellants are on bail and it may not be appropriate to send them to jail again. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The bail bonds stand cancelled.” 9. It would be too harsh to enhance the substantive sentence at such a belated stage. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the awarding of sentence is within the judicial discretion of the Trial Court and unless there is sheer perversity committed in the exercise of such discretion, ordinarily, it would be improper to interfere in the exercise of such judicial discretion. There cannot be doubt about the sentencing policy which requires awarding of appropriate sentence which is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, the social evil and ( 6 ) crap162.04 other attending circumstances. The sentence awarded to the respondent is legal and proper and now it would be difficult to interfere with the discretionary exercise of the power to award such sentence, as done by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 10. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any substantial reason to interfere with the quantum of sentence in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/DEC10/crap162.04