* 1 * Cri.Appeal­183/1988 14.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 183 OF 1988 [FOR ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE] The State of Maharashtra .......Appellant/ Orig.Complainant : V E R S U S : 1. Arjuna Ramchandra Patil, Age : 55 years 2. Kakasaheb Arjuna Patil, Age : 25 years 3. Tatyasaheb Arjuna Patil, Age : 20 years 4. Raghunath @ Tanaji Arjuna Patil, Age : 17 years 5. Basappa Yallappa Hegade (Mang), Age : 60 years 6. Lanka Parasu Rasal, Age : 26 years All residents of Village­ Tangadi, Tal.Athani, Dist.Belgum (Karnataka) .....Respondents Orig,Accused nos.1 to 5 and 11 * * * * * * Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, APP for the appellant/State. Mr. Sudatta Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1. * 2 * Cri.Appeal­183/1988 14.9.2010 Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 14 September, 2010. JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the State for enhancement of the punishment awarded to the respondents herein who are original accused nos.1 to 5 and 11. By the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd December, 1987 the Sessions Court, Sangli convicted the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 366 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Respondent no.1 (accused no.1) was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.500/­. Respondent no.5 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.500/­. Respondent no.11 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/­. Respondents no.2 to 4 were released on their executing bond under Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code in the sum of Rs.2,000/­ and for the period of 3 years for keeping peace and good behaviour. Some of the respondents had preferred an appeal against the order of conviction being Criminal Appeal No. 2 * 3 * Cri.Appeal­183/1988 14.9.2010 of 1988 to the Court of Sessions at Sangli. That Appeal was decided on 9th February, 2007 confirming the conviction and the sentence. 2. Perusal of the office noting on the board shows that the appeal is dismissed against respondents no.2 to 6 vide this court’s order dated 2nd December, 2005. Therefore, the appeal for enhancement is required to be considered against respondent no.1 (accused no.1) alone. 3. Respondent no.1 is a relative of the complainant. The daughter of the complainant, one Ranjana was to marry one Rangarao, son of Haribhau Patil on 12th May, 1985. On the previous night i.e. on 11th May, 1985 at about 11.00 p.m. respondent no.1 alongwith other accused persons came to the house of the complainant in a jeep and forcibly took away Ranjana, then a minor girl after throwing chilli powder into the eyes of her mother and other inmates of the house. The kidnapping was done with the intention of getting her married to original accused no.11. After she was kidnapped, Ranjana was taken to several places and her marriage was performed with original accused no.11 at Village­ Mudhol in Karnataka. Ranjana was rescued on 25th May 1985 by * 4 * Cri.Appeal­183/1988 14.9.2010 the police in the course of investigation into the complaint filed by her father. 4. The prosecution examined in all 23 witnesses to bring home the charges against the respondents and the learned District Judge accepted the evidence and convicted and sentenced the respondents as stated hereinabove. 5. As regards the sentence awarded to all the accused persons, the reasons supporting the same are found at paragraphs­14 and 15 of the judgment. The same read as follows :­ 14. I, now proceed to ask question to the accused “ regarding sentence C.S. 235(2) of Cri.Code. Ques: I hold you accused nos.1 to 5 and 11, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Dode. What have you to to say about the sentence ? Ans : Accused no.1: I am old and sick peron and therefore I may be shown leniency. Accused no.2: We have not committed any offence. We may be released on bond. Accused no.3: We have not committed any offence. We may be released on bond. Accused no.4: We have not committed any offence. We may be released on bond. Accused no.5 : I am old and sick person, and therefore I may be shown leniency. Accused no.11: I may be released on bond. * 5 * Cri.Appeal­183/1988 14.9.2010 15. I have heard both the advocates on the quantum of sentence. The offence of outraging modesty is committed out of human weakness our wickedness. In the given case, if we read the whole episode in its proper perspective. It well be seen that they neither acted due to wickedness or swayed or over­powered by weakness. The accused persons must have acted to oblige the accused no.1 in their over enthusiasm. Therefore, while awarding punishment, this circumstance shall have to be taken into consideration as this is a palliating or mitigating circumstance quo­ punishment. Accused no.11 who has taken part in kidnapping the girl and with whom Ranjana was given in marriage is a young person. He has not done any act so as to commit sexual assault, and therefore, I am inclined to taken lenient view as against accused no.11. Accused no.5 is coming from backward class and it is discarnible and it can be conceived from our common experience that he must have acted in his enthusiasm and in his zest so as to help and oblige accused no.1. He is also old person. Taking into these facts and circumstances, I am inclined to take lenient view against accused no.5 also. Accused nos.2 to 4 are the sons of accused no.1 who might have prompted themselves to commit the offence so as to oblige their * 6 * Cri.Appeal­183/1988 14.9.2010 father like obedient sons. The learned counsel for the defence has argued and submitted with considerable furvour that these accused may be given This suggestion is not opposed to by the prosecution counsel, and to my mind rightly so, because the accused nos.2 to 4 are the sons of accused no.1 and they are quite young persons.” 6. The reasons quoted are seen to be well founded. There is no case made out by the State for enhancement of the same. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]