LexSURYAKANT BABURAO @ RAMRAO PHAD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. SURYAKANT BABURAO @ RAMRAO PHAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No.1161 of 2019) JULY 30, 2019 [R. BANUMATHI AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307, 323, 506 r/w. 34 – Arms Act – s.4 r/w s.25 – Attempt to murder – There was some exchange of words between the accused persons (No. 1 to 3) and PW-6 – In this quarrel, Respondent No.2-accused no.1 fired a shot from his pistol at PW-6 on his chest – Hearing the sound PW-5 & 7 tried to intervene – PW-7 was also shot on his left knee by accused no.1 and PW-5 was beaten up by the accused persons causing grievous hurt – FIR was registered u/s. 307 r/w. s. 34 IPC, ss.323 and 506 IPC – Doctor stated injuries caused to PW-6 were capable of causing death – Trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 u/s. 307 r/w s.34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and imposed fine of Rs.15000/- – Trial Court also convicted them u/s. 323 r/w. 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500/- – Accused were also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to injured PW-6 & 7 as compensation – High Court affirmed the conviction of respondent No.2-accused no.1 u/s. 307 r/w. s. 34 IPC, however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years and imposed fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- – Insofar, respondent Nos. 3 and 4- accused Nos. 2 & 3 are concerned, the High Court acquitted them from the charges u/s. 307 r/w. 34 IPC and instead convicted them u/s. 326 r/w. s.34 IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- – High Court maintained conviction of accused nos. 1 to 3 u/s. 323 r/w. s.34 IPC – On appeal, held: When trial Court exercised its discretion in imposing seven years of sentence of imprisonment, the High Court ought to have kept in view the weapon used by accused No.1 and the nature of injuries caused to PW-6 and the opinion of the Doctor – High Court was not right in [2019] 10 S.C.R. 570 570 A B C D E F G H 571 reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon accused no.1 – Since the enhanced compensation was paid by accused no. 1, which withdrawn by injured-victims, for conviction u/s. 307 r/w. s.34 IPC, the accused no.1 directed to undergo imprisonment for six years and six months – So far as accused no. 2 & 3 are concerned, they were not armed and alleged to have attacked the injured with fists, kicks and with sticks – Thus, no interference required with their acquittal u/s. 307 r/w. s. 34 IPC and reduction of sentence of imprisonment u/s. 326 r/w. s.34 IPC. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. While considering the quantum of sentence, the courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, nature of injuries caused in the occurrence and the weapon used which will have bearing on the question of sentence and the Courts are bound to impose sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Considering the nature of injuries caused to PW-6 i.e. gun shot wounds in the chest and the opinion of Doctor that the injuries caused to PW-6 are capable of causing death, the High Court was not right in reducing the sentence of first accused. [Para 12] [577-D-E] 2. Considering the nature of the injuries caused to PW-6 and PW-7 and the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court convicted accused No.1 under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.15,000/-. When the trial court has exercised its discretion in imposing seven years of sentence of imprisonment, the High Court ought to have kept in view the weapon used by accused No.1 and the nature of injuries caused to PW-6 and the opinion of the Doctor. The courts must not only keep in view the right of the accused, but must also keep in view the interest of the victim and society at large. The courts have been consistent in approach that a reasonable proportion has to be maintained between the gravity of the offence and the punishment. While it is true that the sentence imposed upon the accused should not be harsh, inadequacy of sentence may lead to sufferance of the SURYAKANT BABURAO @ RAMRAO PHAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS A B C D E F G H 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. victim and the community at large. So far as the first accu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.