[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.738 OF 2007 Babulal Ghanshyam Thakur ] B-5518, at present Kolhapur ] Central Prison, Kolhapur ]..Appellant [Ori.Accused] Vs. The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondent ... Mr.A.K.Molly Advocate Advocate (Appointed) for Appellant Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant through this appeal has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the learned 10th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.908 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC. For the offence under Section 307 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to suffer RI for five years and fine of Rs.500/- in default RI for 15 days. [-2-] 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: . There was a dispute between the complainant and the accused. On account of the said dispute, there was a quareel between the complainant and the accused and during the quarrel, the appellant stabbed the complainant with knife. 3. I have heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the judgment and order as well as evidence on record. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a poor person. He has preferred this appeal through jail. He has submitted that even during the trial, the appellant was not properly represented and the accused had cross-examined the witnesses as advocate engaged by him, was not present on many occasions. The learned advocate for the appellant has stated that he is not challenging the conviction of the appellant and he is only praying that the [-3-] substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant under Section 307 of IPC may be reduced. For the offence under Section 307 of IPC, five years imprisonment has been imposed on him. He submitted that the appellant has a clean record, hence, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced. The learned APP has no objection to the sentence of imprisonment being reduced to three years. 5. Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to reduce the sentence under Section 307 of IPC to three years. 6. In the result, conviction and fine for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to three years R.I. The appellant shall serve out the remaining sentence. 7. Appeal is partly allowed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]