The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for just punishment based on the gravity of the offence.

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

1. This appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred for enhancement of sentence imposed by judgment and order dated 10.9.2004 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2004, whereby the respondents-original accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo further imprisonment of two months. Being aggrieved by imposition of sentence, the State has preferred this enhancement appeal.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under:-

2.1 As per the case of the prosecution, on 12.1.2004 when the complainant and her both children were in their house and her husband had gone for attending duty, somebody had knocked the door from outside, which was closed. The complainant was under an impression that her husband would have come for dinner and, therefore, she opened the door. She witnessed that two persons were standing near the door and the complainant asked them as to why they have come, and in reply thereto they stated that her husband asked them to do so and they entered the house. One person pushed the complainant and taken her into the kitchen while the other had attempted to snatch the gold chain of the complainant on the point of knife. The complainant shouted, therefore, the residents of the locality came and, the accused tried to run away. However, the accused were caught red handed. Accordingly, the complaint was filed with Jamnagar City "B" Division Police Station.

2.2 On complaint being filed, investigation was carried out and the accused were arrested in connection with the said offence. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same committed to Sessions Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.3 During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses:-

Sr. No.	Name	Exh.
1	Complainant-Sumanben Kailashchandra.	10
2	Ravirsinh Dharamsinh.	11
3	Mittalben Ramanlal Bochiya.	13
4	Harddep Jadvindersing Kaur.	14
5	Gaurav Chandulal Mandlik.	15
6	Jakirhussain Pinjara.	16
7	Dr. Rakhalchandra Gapeshchandra Datta.	17
8	Reenaben Nileshbhai Patel.	21
9	Kailashchandra Ramavtar Joshi.	22
10	Jayendrasinh Joravarsinh Jadeja.	23
11	Savjibhai Samatbhai.	27
12	Shankarbhai Pitamberbhai Patel.	28
13	Jethalal Govindji Nakum.	32

2.4 The prosecution had also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:-

Sr. No.	Name	Exhibit
1	Panchnama of the place of offence.	12
2	MLC certificate of the complaint Sumanben.	18
3	Inquiry certificate of Sumanben.	19
4	Yadi for medical treatment of injured Sumanben	20
5	FIR	24
6	Report of registering the offence.	25
7	Panchnama of recovery of muddamal.	29
8	Copy of notification of prohibition of weapons.	30

2.5 At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction, which has led to the filing of present appeal.

3. Learned APP, Mr. L.R. Pujari appearing for the appellant-State has taken us through the oral as well as documentary evidence and contended that the trial Court has committed an error in imposing lesser sentence upon the accused inspit