VISHWAMBHAR NARAYAN JADHAV v. MALLAPPA
1071
SANGRAMAPPA MALLIPATIL & ANR.
~.
ORDER
A
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
I
s·
3. 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.
4. 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
D
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
E
the photographs showing serious bum injuries on the head, face
and chest of the appellant.
5. 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.
6. Against the aforesaid judgment, respondent No.1 filed
an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, who by his
G
judgment dated 13th April, 2007 confirmed the conviction and
... )
sentence awarded by the trial Court .
7. 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
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but the
~-
fine was increased to Rs. 20,000/-.
8. We are surprised that the High Court has, in such a
heinous crime, chosen to reduce the punishment ·to the
'B
sentence already undergone which we are informed was only
35 days. In our opinion, there was no occasion for the High ·
Court to interfere with the· judgment of the trial Court. and the
first appellate court. Respondent No.1 appears to be a person
r-
-#"
who has criminal inclinations and no leniency is called for for
c
such. persons, otherwise people will not be able to go around
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.
~
....
......
.
Lex