MP 1 APEAL152_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2011 Subhash Tukaram Jori residing at Jaybhavani Nagar, Kothrud, Pune (Presently at Yerawada Central Prison, Pune) ... Appellant/Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Vikas Shivarkar i/b. Mr. Vipin Bidkar, Advocate for the Appellant / Applicant. Smt. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER 2011 ORAL JUDGEMENT: Today, the bail application was on Board as the applicant wanted to be released on bail pending his appeal against conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 366 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1000/- awarded by Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 364 of 2009. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant, who was the original accused No.2, is in custody since 17th August 2007, and he was convicted by the impugned judgment dated 25th November 2010. He has already undergone imprisonment of more than four years and one month, and, by this time, he must have been also entitled for some remission. In view of these circumstances, the learned Counsel for the appellant states that he would not press the appeal on the point of conviction but would request to consider the appeal only on the point of sentence. Therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel of both the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. MP 2 APEAL152_11 3. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that four persons including the present applicant had allegedly abducted the prosecutrix and accused No.1 alone had committed rape on her. Accused Nos.3 and 4 were acquitted. In para 31 and 32 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has also noted several contradictions and discrepancies in respect of the role of the present applicant, who was accused No.2. Taking into consideration the nature of evidence against the applicant, as well as the fact that he is already in jail continuously for more than four years and one month and that by this time, he must have been entitled to some remission, in my opinion, the sentence, as already undergone, is sufficient to meet the justice. 4. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. While the conviction of the accused No.2 / appellant for the offence under Section 366 r/w. Section 34 is maintained, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment as already undergone. The applicant-appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 5. As the appeal itself is disposed of, the application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA, J)