Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VENKATESH NAIK T.
Jaarthab S/o Akram Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Criminal Revision Petition No.357 of 2017 is filed by accused No.1, Criminal Revision Petition No.631 of 2017 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 4, and Criminal Revision Petition No.822 of 2018 is filed by accused No.3 to set aside the judgment and order dated 1-2-2017 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan, in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2015 and to confirm the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alur, Hassan, in Criminal Case No.521 of 2014.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 3, respectively and the respondent is the complainant-State before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Accused Nos.1 to 4 joined together to commit house breaking of PW1. On 12-11-2013 at about 01.30 to 02.00 p.m., they broke open the back door of the first informant's house and they illegally trespassed into his house and committed the offence of theft by stealing gold ornaments and cash, which led to registration of F.I.R. and investigation.
4. The Investigating Officer, af
The court emphasized that sentences imposed on guilty pleas should consider reformative justice, prioritizing leniency unless serious prior conduct is evidenced.
First-time offenders should be considered for probation during sentencing, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
The appellate court's power to modify sentences must be measured by the power of the court from whose judgment an appeal has been brought before it, and the fine imposed should not exceed the jurisdi....
The court may modify sentences based on the nature of the offence and victim's willingness for leniency, as per Sections 357(3) and 357(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to reduce the sentence for the offences based on the time already spent by the petitioner in incarceration and trial, consid....
The court considered the revisionist's personal circumstances and lack of criminal antecedents in reducing the sentence under sections 380 and 411 IPC.
A court can modify a sentence to time already served when the defendant has considerably served their sentence and considers the defendant's past offenses.
The court has the discretion to consider the time already spent by the accused-petitioner in incarceration and trial when deciding on the reduction of the sentence for the offences.
A criminal court must impose the statutory minimum sentence as prescribed by law, without discretion to reduce it.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
