1 Criminal Appl.No.5358 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5358 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Moujpuri, Tq. and Dist. Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS Vasant Kathalu Padmukh, Age-38 years, R/o.Hivra Roshangaon, Tq.Jalna, Dist. Jalna RESPONDENT Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicant. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 28/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is an application filed by the State seeking leave to file appeal for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent/accused who has been convicted by the Extra Jt.Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, by judgment dated 09/09/2010 in Sessions Case No. 37/2010 for an offence punishable u/s.451 and 354 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 2 months on each count and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to which to undergo SI for one month for each offence. 2 Criminal Appl.No.5358 of 2010 2. It appears that a charge sheet against the present respondent came to be filed for an offence punishable u/s. 376 r/w. 511 of the IPC. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that no offence of attempt to commit rape was established and instead convicted the respondent accused for offence punishable u/s. 451 and 354 of the IPC. The Trial Court at para no.14 has given reasons as to why the Trial Court felt that the sentence of 2 months RI was adequate. According to the Trial Court, the applicant was the sole earning member of the family, on whom his family depended and was working as a labourer. The respondent/accused had expressed his regrets for the aforesaid offence and had assured that no offence of this nature would be repeated in future. The Trial Court took into consideration the repentants and the economical condition of the accused and awarded aforesaid sentence. Offence punishable u/s. 354 of the IPC is punishable with maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment or with fine or with both. 3. It also appears that the respondent accused has not preferred any appeal questioning his conviction and appears to have undergone the sentence imposed upon him. The judgment was delivered in September 2010 and practically 10 months have passed since the delivery of the judgment and yet no appeal appears to have been preferred by the respondent accused. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us no interference is called for in the present appeal for enhancement of the said sentence. 3 Criminal Appl.No.5358 of 2010 4. We have heard learned A.P.P. Shri.Shaikh. It also appears that the State has not filed any appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondent accused for offence punishable u/s. 376 r/w. 511 of The IPC. In the light of what has been held by us above, application is rejected. Leave refused. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JUNE 2011/cri.appl.5358-10