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