Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 17 -

C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 reasonable doubt. Therefore, sought to allow the Criminal Appeal.

18. Per contra, Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, while justifying the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, contended that the punishment imposed on accused-James Vinod to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo further imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 326 r/w Section 511 of the Indian penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, is inadequate and is liable to be enhanced. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has come to a wrong conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the common intention on the part of the accused-James Vinod. There is vital importance so far as the role attributed and overt act alleged against the accused in the FIR and evidence of

- 20 -

C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017

(iii) Whether the State has made out a case to enhance the sentence in respect of accused- James Vinod for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 341 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code?

(iv) Whether the State has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal acquitting the accused-James Vinod for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

38. Accordingly, point Nos.3 and 4 are answered in the negative holding that the State has not made out any case to enhance the sentence in respect of accused-James Vinod for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 341 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and the State has not made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal acquitting the accused-James Vinod for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

- 44 -

C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017

(viii) The Appellant/accused-James Vinod in Criminal Appeal No.496/2017 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 511 and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

(ix) Criminal Appeal No.2186/2017 filed by the State challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No.89/2013 on the ground that the sentence imposed on the respondent/ accused-James Vinod for the offences punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 511 and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is inadequate, is hereby dismissed.