BHAGWAN NARAYAN GAIKWAD versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 20-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
81
BHAGWAN NARAYAN GAIKWAD
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No (s). 1039 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.326 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
by dangerous weapons – Conviction under – Prosecution case that
the appellant and other accused persons attacked the victim with a
lethal weapon which chopped off his right arm and leg during the
course of the crime – However, the victim survived with the immediate
medical treatment – Trial Court convicted 12 accused persons
including appellant – accused for the offence punishable u/s.326
r/w. s.149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to suffer 7 years
rigorous imprisonment – Appeal before the High Court was
collectively preferred by all the 12 accused persons, the High Court
under its impugned judgment found the accused A3, A4, A10 and
A12 including the present appellant (A1) guilty and because of lack
of material against the other accused persons, they were acquitted
under the impugned judgment – The appeal stood abated in respect
of four accused persons, A3, A4, A10 and A12 – The appellant was
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years – Before the Supreme
Court, the appellant confined his submissions for compounding the
sentence for the reason that a compromise was entered between the
appellant and the injured victim – Held: The substance of the
compromise was completely superfluous in the mechanical form and
nothing elicit about the earlier relations, if any, or when such cordial
relations or what kind of family relations later on had developed,
all such facts were completely missing and the contents were
stereotyped – The compromise does not record satisfaction of this
Court – The High Court had recorded sufficient reasons while
convicting appellant u/s.326 IPC – The brutality of assault is
apparent from the face of the record – The injured was crippled for
life – The act of the appellant is unpardonable – Thus, there is no
reason to interfere in the sentence awarded by the High Court.
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 81
81
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The substance of what has been referred to in
the compromise and noticed by this Court, the statement of fact
is completely superfluous in the mechanical form and nothing
elicit about the earlier relations, if any, or when such cordial
relations or what kind of family relations later on have been
developed, all such facts are completely missing and the contents
are stereotyped, appears to be copied from paragraph 6 of the
judgment in Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
(Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2018) decided by this Court on 5th
July, 2018. [Para 23][89-H; 90-A-B]
2. In the recent judgment in Murali, this Court has taken
into consideration not only the compromise but the other
aggravating and mitigating circumstances in which the crime has
been committed including the fact that the accused has undergone
more than half the sentence and in totality of the facts and
circumstances, this Court has interfered and molded the sentence.
[Para 24][90-B-C]
3. While disposing of the appeal preferred at the instance
of the present appellant, the High Court has recorded its sufficient
reasons while convicting him under Section 326 IPC and not only
the fact that it was a pre-meditated attempt of the appellant, he
assaulted the victim with the sword and chopped of his right leg
below the knee and right forearm below the elbow and the brutality
is apparent on the face of record. [Para 26][90-E-F]
4. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of the
criminal delivery system, but this Court does not find any
legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assess the trial
Court in meeting out the just punishment to the accused facing
trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges. Nonetheless,
if one goes through the decisions of this Court, it would appear
that this Court takes into account a combination of different factors
while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality,
deterrence, rehabilitation, etc. [Para 28][90-H; 91-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
83
5. The compromise if entered at the later stage of the
incident or even after conviction can indeed be one of the factor
in interfering the sentence awarded to commensurate with the
nature of offence being committed to avoid bitterness in the
families of the accused and the victim and it will always be b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.