PARESHBHAI ANNABHAI SONVANE Vs STATE OF GUJARAT .
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000209-000209 / 2016
Diary number: 42153 / 2015
Advocates: VIKASH SINGH Vs
Page 1
Crl.A.No.209 of 2016
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.209 OF 2016 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1671 of 2016]
Pareshbhai Annabhai Sonvane …..Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. The sole appellant was accused no.2 before the Sessions Judge,
Surat in Sessions Case No.278/2008 along with three other co-accused
for offences under Sections 395, 397 and 504 of the IPC. The trial court
found sufficient evidence against accused nos.1 to 3 and accordingly
convicted them for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC while holding
that prosecution could not establish the other charges. Considering that
the value of the alleged loot including cash and mobile was only
Rs.16,550/- and the young age of the accused, the trial court inflicted
rigorous imprisonment of only one year along with fine of Rs.100/-. In
the trial court judgment dated 24.08.2011 the age of the appellant has
1
Page 2
Crl.A.No.209 of 2016
been recorded as 24 years and as such on the date of the alleged
occurrence in July 2008 he would be about 21-22 years of age.
2. The State of Gujarat opted to prefer Criminal Appeal No.1463 of
2011 under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek
enhancement of sentence imposed on the three convicts including the
appellant. By the impugned judgment and order under appeal dated
21.09.2015 the High Court came to the view that the trial court had
rightly convicted the accused but had erred in imposing a sentence of
imprisonment which was clearly on the lower side. The High Court
allowed the appeal to the extent of enhancing the sentence to five years
of rigorous imprisonment along with the fine imposed by the trial court.
3. After hearing the arguments of both the sides we are not
persuaded to interfere with the conviction of the appellant under Section
395 IPC and hence his conviction is affirmed. However, for the same
very reasons as recorded by the trial court and finding that nothing was
recovered from him, we are persuaded to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment. We have been informed on the basis of facts mentioned
in the Surrender Certificate dated 19.02.2016 available on record that
the appellant has now remained in jail for three years and two months
on account of continuous incarceration since his surrender on
28.07.2008. The certificate further discloses that fine of Rs.100/- has
also been paid. In the facts of the case and considering the period
already undergone by the appellant, we reduce the period of sentence
2
Page 3
Crl.A.No.209 of 2016
imposed upon the appellant to the period already undergone, i.e., three
years and two months of actual imprisonment. In case he is not required
to be kept in prison in connection with any other matter, he should be
released in the present matter forthwith. The appeal is allowed to the
aforesaid extent only.
.…………………………………….J. [DIPAK MISRA]
……………………………………..J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi. March 18, 2016.
3