The court upheld the trial court's sentencing discretion, affirming that interference is only warranted when a sentence is manifestly inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

Vimal K. Vyas, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant – State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) and is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.154 of 2008.

2. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the trial court held the present respondents-accused guilty and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently, sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. However, the trial court acquitted the present respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them under Sections 306, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 22.10.2005 at about 8:00 p.m. at Ranchhodji Pole, Manjalpur, Vadodara, the accused persons had abused the complainant by hurling filthy language and thereafter the accused no.1 Bhaveshbhai had inflicted stick blows on the eye of the complainant, whereas the accused no.2 had inflicted stick blows on the head of the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that since the incident had occurred on a public place, the complainant could not tolerate the insult and, therefore, he attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene and setting himself ablaze.

4. A complaint (Exh.27) in this regard came to be lodged by the complainant against the present respondents-accused, which was registered as II-CR No.203 of 2005 before the Makarpura Police Station, Vadodara.

5. Pursuant to the FIR, investigation was carried out and after the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the present respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 306, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Thereafter, the case was registered as the Sessions Case No.154 of 2008 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed the Charge against the respondents-accused, whereupon the respondents-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and adduced documentary evidence in support of their case, which are as follow :

7. On completion of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge explained the incriminating circumstances against the respondents-accused. The respondents-accused, in their further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., explained the incriminating circumstances that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the alleged offence.

8. On completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against