- (1.) The present appeal is filed by the State under Section 377 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking for enhancement of sentence imposed on the respondent-accused as per the judgment dated 04.09.2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 71 of 2012 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana sentencing the respondent-accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of five months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default simple imprisonment for fifteen days under section 135 of B.P. Act.
(2.) The prosecution case was that the accused was making illicit demands from the mother of the complainant and therefore the father of the complainant had reprimanded the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.02.2012, at around 08.30 pm a gupti blow was inflicted by the accused on the abdomen of deceased Dilipbhai and also inflicted another blow on his left knee as a result of which he died. A complaint was therefore lodged by the son of the deceased. Investigation was therefore initiated and the accused was arrested. 2.1 After completing the investigation, the prosecution filed the charge sheet. Learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court and the accused was charged for the offences as per the charges framed. Trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and also relied upon as many as 34 documents as documentary evidences which have been perused by us. 2.2 At the end of the trial and after recording the further statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge passed the aforesaid judgement. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the State has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of sentence.
(3.) Ms. C.M. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the trial court erred in not properly appreciating the gravity of the offence committed by the accused while imposing the sentence and thereby committed grave error. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and submitted that this is a fit case wherein this Court may enhance the sentence imposed. She submitted that in fact the respondent accused has accepted the conviction as no appeal has been filed by him against the conviction.;