MADAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned sentence on the ground only confined to its inadequacy in this revision petition, u/sec. 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. praying therein for awarding deterrent sentence to the respondent (accused) Sangram Singh, who was convicted u/ss. 457, 458, 323 & 324 IPC but sentenced to undergo four months' simple imprisonment under each count and was imposed with fine of Rs. 200/- each u/sec. 457 & 458 IPC, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui (District Dausa) under Judgment dated 4. 7. 96 in Criminal Case No. 215/96 arising out of FIR No. 173/95 lodged on 8. 5. 1995 at Police Station Bandikui by complainant (petitioner) herein. THE accused-respondent Sangram Singh who at the time of incident was duly armed with axe is alleged to have intruded into complainant's house at about 1 O'clock in the midnight thereof, whereupon his mother and sister who were sleeping in the chowk got awaken, and respondent Sangram Singh inflicted axe blows upon them.
(2.) AFTER usual investigation the police submitted challan and the respondent was charged for offence punishable u/sec. 457, 458, 323 & 324 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, when the prosecution examined Babu Singh as PW, who was also not cross examined by the accused, then the respondent submitted an application and pleaded guilty therein, whereupon the prosecution evidence was closed. Accordingly the respondent was examined u/sec. 313 Cr. P. C. during which he pleaded his guilt by accepting the prosecution case. Thus on the basis of guilt pleaded by the respondent and the prosecution evidence on record the trial court held the respondent guilty of the offence charged against him and convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Hence this revision petition against the impugned sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of sentence and the material on record. Shri P. C. Jain learned counsel for the complainant contended at the outset that keeping in view the nature of injuries caused and weapon of offence used so also the manner in which the respondent committed it in the midnight by scaling over the wall and trespassing into the house, duly armed with axe with which he inflicted several blows upon two women sleeping in their house, the trial court committed grave error of law in awarding a lesser sentence than stipulated in the Indian Penal Code for the offences charged against the respondent. On the other hand Shri M. M. Ranjan learned counsel for the accused respondent contended that adequacy of the sentence can be challenged u/sec. 377 Cr. P. C. only by the Public Prosecutor on the direction of the State Government to present appeal to the High Court on the ground of inadequacy of the impugned sentence inasmuch as by virtue of bar under sub sec. (4) of Sec. 401 Cr. P. C. , this revision petition cannot be entertained by this Court. Lastly Shri Ranjan contended that even otherwise this court by virtue of its jurisdiction u/sec. 401, can exercise any of powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Sec. 386 Cr. P. C. for altering the nature or the extent of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same, and in this view of the matter, this Court can dismiss the revision petition for enhancement of the impugned sentence keeping in view the nature of injuries found on the injured persons and confessional statement of the accused.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY the State has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of the impugned sentence, by invoking Sec. 377, Cr. P. C. Since inadequacy of impugned sentence is challenged u/sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr. P. C. , first of all I would like to have a brief resume as to the scope of revisional powers of this Court. Section 397 Cr. P. C. confers upon the High Court by calling for record to exercise powers of revision for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any sentence. Sec. 401 Cr. P. C. does also postulate High Court's powers of revision. According to its sub section (1), "if otherwise comes to its knowledge",the High Court in its discretion can also exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 & 391 Cr. P. C. . As per sub section (4) of Sec. 401 Cr. P. C. where an appeal lies under Cr. P. C. and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. Moreover, according to sub sec. (3) of Sec. 401 Cr. P. C. , nothing in Sec. 401 shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction meaning thereby that sub sec. (3) restricts the scope of its revisional powers as to conversion of findings acquittal into conviction. This evidently means that the revisional powers are to be exercised very sparingly and that too in exceptional case only. Sec. 375 & 377 are the only provisions in the Cr. P. C. which permit appeals against sentence alone. While the former is restricted to cases in which the accused is convicted on a plea of guilty, the latter is restricted to cases in which the State directs the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of insufficiency. Merely because appeal is provided against sentence in certain cases, court cannot support appealability by implication in other cases where sentence alone is required to be challenged. A right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right and hence it must be referable to express provisions in a statute. Sec. 375 Cr. P. C. puts a bar to bring an appeal in cases when accused pleads guilty and is convicted on such plea and however, Sec. 375 (b) Cr. P. C. gives exception to bring an appeal but only as to the extent of legality of the sentence if the conviction on plea of guilty is ordered by Court of Session or Magistrate of the first or second class. Since there is express provision contained in Sec. 377 under which State Government may appeal to the High Court against sentence upon conviction to the accused. Sec. 375 Cr. P. C. confines only to the accused meaning thereby that the accused may appeal as to the extent or legality of the sentence if he is convicted on his plea of guilty by Court of Session or the Magistrate. Therefore, Sec. 375 Cr. P. C. is not attracted to the present case as contended by Shri Ranjan to advance the case that no appeal or revision lies because in this case at hand, the respondent pleaded guilty and he has been convicted on such plea of guilty. ;