THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.220 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal by the State filed under Sections 377(2) Cr.P.C. to enhance the sentence imposed in the judgment dated 21.06.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.93 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Yellamanchili, whereunder and whereby accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each, and accused No.6 was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the Criminal Appeal may be stated as under:- The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 20/21.09.2006, accused Nos.1 to 5 wearing knickers and masks and armed with deadly weapons entered into the house of P.W.1 in Ramannapalem village of Atchuthapuram Mandal and woke up P.W.2. They threatened them at the point of knives not to raise cries and robbed the gold and silver articles and decamped with the booty by keeping them inside the bedroom and bolted the doors outside. On hearing the cries of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.3, who was sleeping on the roof of the house, woke up and chased the accused for some distance. On the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered. Subsequently the police arrested accused Nos.1 to 5 and made recoveries and also arrested accused No.6, who was receiver of stolen property and made recoveries, and laid the charge shet after completion of investigation. 3. The trial Court framed charges under Section 395 I.P.C. against accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and under Section 411 I.P.C. against accused No.6, and when the charges were readover and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked, besides case property M.O.1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, considering evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, imposed the conviction and sentence as stated above. Challenging the adequacy of sentence, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to enhance the sentence imposed by the trial Court? 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. There cannot be any dispute that the sentence should be in proportionate with the severity of the crime. This is the doctrine of proportionality. The dacoity has been committed, according to the case of the prosecution, on the intervening night of 20/21.09.2006 in the house of P.W.1 in the village of Ramannapalem, Atchuthapuram Mandal. The allegation is that all the accused threatened the inmates of the house not to raise cries and robbed the gold and silver articles. The dacoity property in this case, which has been recovered by the Police, is only M.O.1 - pair of gold sathamanams. The accused have not caused any injury to the inmates of the house. Basing on the evidence available on record, the trial Court has not taken any lenient view. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of rigorous imprisonment of four years against accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 is not shown to be lesser punishment for the offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. Similarly, the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for two years against accused No.6 for the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. cannot be shown to be less. In view of the fact that the punishment is in proportionate with the severity to the crime, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) 09th February, 2010 GHN