1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.695 OF 2006 Shivaji Narshing @ Raosaheb Sawant ..... Appellant. V/s The State of Maharashtra .... Respondents. ---- Mr. Sandeep Y. Katkade, (advocate appointed from the Legal Aid) for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 14th November, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under sections 393, 457 and 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs 500/- and in default in making the payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for six months. 3. Prosecution case is that on 25/2/2004, the complainant Shripada Chandrashekhar Moorthy was sleeping in his house and his daughter Miss Leena was studying in a room 2 and was preparing for her annual examination. At that time, she was alone in the said room when the applicant entered the room and had put a paper-cutter on her neck. Complainant's daughter raised hue and cry and the complainant rushed to her room and pounced upon the appellant. On hearing her screams, the watchman of the building also came there and apprehended the accused and, at the same time, Police Officer came to the spot and he arrested the accused. Charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court relied on the evidence of the complainant and his daughter Leena and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 4. I have gone through the notes of evidence. The evidence of the complainant is corroborated by his daughter Leena. The evidence of the complainant Shripada Chandrashekhar Moorthy at whose instance the FIR was lodged is further corroborated by the watchman P.W. 2 – Ramkaran Singh. The paper-cutter was also seized and has been identified by this witness. Trial Court, therefore, has rightly held that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Trail Court has noted that the appellant has been convicted on 17 previous occasions. 5. Trial Court has taken into consideration the various aspects while considering the quantum of sentence and after taking into consideration the past convictions of the appellant and possibility that he is not likely to be reformed, sentenced him to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment. In view of this 3 Trial Court was justified in imposing the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment. 6. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)