Judgment sc-2008-16-1070-1072

p. 1071 Copy page pinpoint

SANGRAMAPPA MALLIPATIL & ANR.

~. ORDER A

1Copy pinpoint1. Leave granted.

2Copy pinpoint2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I

3Copy pinpoint3. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned -;. i judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27th April, 2007 in Criminal Revision Application No.183 of 2007.

4Copy pinpoint4. The facts of the prosecution case are mentioned in the C! FIR dated 25th January, 2002, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal. In the FIR, it has been mentioned that while the appellant was on a bus, respondent No.1 .entered the bus and came to the seat of the appellant and said that you always harassed my uncle and he started abusing the appellant. Respondent No.1 then took a bottle of acid from his pocket and poured the acid on the head of the appellant ~- with the result that the face, neck, eyes, chest etc. of the • appellant were seriously burnt. Appellant was then taken to the hospital where he was given medical treatment. We have seen the photographs showing serious bum injuries on the head, face and chest of the appellant.

5Copy pinpoint5. The trial Court, by its judgment dated 06th October, 2004, found respondent No.1 guilty under Section 326, IPC and sentenced him to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment with F -~ a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo further three months' simple imprisonment.

6Copy pinpoint6. Against the aforesaid judgment, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, who by his judgment dated 13th April, 2007 confirmed the conviction and G ... ) sentence awarded by the trial Court .

7Copy pinpoint7. Thereafter, it appears that respondent No.1 filed a Criminal Revision Applrcation No.183/2007 before the Bombay I

High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court H

p. 1072 Copy page pinpoint

A reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but the ~- fine was increased to Rs. 20,000/-.

8Copy pinpoint8. We are surprised that the High Court has, in such a heinous crime, chosen to reduce the punishment ·to the sentence already undergone which we are informed was only 'B 35 days. In our opinion, there was no occasion for the High · Court to interfere with the· judgment of the trial Court. and the r- -#" first appellate court. Respondent No.1 appears to be a person who has criminal inclinations and no leniency is called for for such. persons, otherwise people will not be able to go around c in life in peace.

Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial court an~ first (lppellate_ court. Respondent No.1 be taken into custody forthwith to serve D out his remaining part of sentence.

R.P. Appeal allowed. ~ ....