Karnataka High Court
Ramakrishna vs The State By Girinagar Police on 7 March, 2013
1 Crl.A 205/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.205 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Ramakrishna,
S/o. late Gangadhar,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.264, 9th Main,
Nagendra Block,
Bangalore-560 050. ... APPELLANT/S
[By Sri. M. Mohan Kumar & Sri. R.V. Anand, Advs.]
AND:
The State by
Girinagar Police. ... RESPONDENT/S
[By Sri. Rajesh Rai K, HCGP.]
***
This Crl.A. is filed u/Section 374(2) Cr.P.C
praying to set aside the Judgment and Order dated
22.06.2010 passed by the F.T.C.(Sessions)-XI,
Bangalore in S.C. No.596/2009 - convicting the
appellant/accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 436 and 427 of IPC.
2 Crl.A 205/13
The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine
of Rs.2,000/-, in default to pay fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months for the
offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC.
The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for 1 year and pay fine of
Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine, he shall undergo
simple imprisonment for 2 months for the offence
punishable under Section 427 of IPC.
This Crl.A. coming on for Final Hearing, this
day the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the charge under Section 436 and 427 IPC., on a trial held by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bangalore.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:
On 23.01.2009 at about 10.00 a.m., when the appellant was in his house No.264, Nagendra Block, 9th Main, within the limits of Girinagar Police Station, Bangalore, said to have quarreled with 3 Crl.A 205/13 his wife as she did not prepare the breakfast properly and having sent all the members of the family including his wife outside the house said to have poured kerosene and set fire to his house. Due to which he caused the damage to an extent of Rs.25,000-00. On completion of the investigation, he was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 436 and 427 IPC.
During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and in their evidence marked the documents Exs.P1 to 7 and M.Os.1 to 2. Having recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the trial Court heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material, convicted the appellant for the said charges and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000-00 for the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 4 Crl.A 205/13 Rs.500-00 for the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned High Court Government Pleader.
4. The point that arises for my consideration is;
Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to warrant interference in the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 436 and 427 IPC?
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the sentence ordered by the trial Court is on higher side as the appellant is said to have set fire to his own house by sending all the family members outside the house. He further submits that as the appellant was in the custody 5 Crl.A 205/13 for one year 4 months, the sentence of imprisonment be restricted to the custodial period already undergone and to grant an order of release.
On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the sentence ordered by the trial Court.
6. As could be seen from the Judgment of the trial Court, it appears that the appellant went to home for breakfast and as his wife did not properly prepare the food, he is said to have set fire to the house after sending his wife and other members of the family outside. It was also stated that due to the fire, damage to the extent of Rs.25,000-00 was caused.
7. The appellant is in custody for one year and 4 months. He is aged about 34 years at the time of the incident and a married person. He did not have any criminal background. Taking into 6 Crl.A 205/13 consideration these facts, I think the sentence ordered by the trial Court has to be modified restricting the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone as he has been in custody for the period approximately one year and 4 months, affirming the conviction ordered by the trial Court.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, confirming the conviction ordered by the trial Court. The sentence for the offence punishable under section 436 IPC is modified. The sentence of imprisonment is confined to the custody period in addition, the appellant shall pay the fine ordered by the trial Court in default to undergo the default sentence. So far as his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC., it is affirmed. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Ksm*