LexTUKARAM DNYANESHWAR PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 526
TUKARAM DNYANESHWAR PATIL
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2015)
MARCH 13, 2015
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
. ·. Pena/code, 1860: s.302 rlws.34; s.304 Part II rlws.34
- OiS"fJute between victim-deceased and accused persons
over the boundary of the field - On the fateful day, A-1
assaulted the deceased with sickle on his left ear and A-2
o and A-3 assaulted him by means of sticks on his head and
mouth - When PW-1, brother of the deceased intervened,
A-1 to A-3 assaulted him with sticks on his ann and head -
Later the deceased succumbed to injuries - Trial court
convicted the accused u/s. 302 rlw s. 34- High Court modified
E conviction to s.304 Part II rlw s.34 and directed the accused
to pay Rs.105000 to PW1 and family members of the
dece;J€;~d - Held: In view of the evidence on record, there
:·.,;t.
was h"iJ'.error in impugned order convicting the accused ul
s.304 Part {I - However, the sentence awarded was
F inappropriate - Respondents 2 to 4 had undergone only
eleven months imprisonment- High Court while altering the
conviction to s.304 Part-II, altered the sentence to·
imprisonment for period already undergone and directed to
G pay a sum of Rs.350001- each to the complainant- The facts
and circumstances of the case proved by the prosecution in
bringing home the guilt of the acc1t16ed uls. 304 Part-II
undoubtedly show a despicable· aggravated offence
warranting punishment proportionate to the crime - The
H sentence of eleven months was too meagre -
The
526
TUKARAM DNYANESHWAR PATIL v. STATE OF
527
MAHARASHTRA
imposition of five years rigorous imprisonf]1ent on each of A
the accused would meet the ends of justice - Sentence/
Sentencing.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. After analyzing the evidence, the High B
Court held that there was quarrel which led to the
occurrence and the accused had also injuries and they
cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder and since
they had knowledge that their act is likely to cause death c ·
they are liable to be convicted for the offence under · ·
Section 304 Part-II IPC. There was no error in the said
conclusion of the High Court. [Para 9] [532-C-D]
2. Respondents 2 to 4/accused nos.1 to 3 were D
arrested on 29.10.1997 and they were ordered to ·.t;>e • .
released on bail on 28.9.1998 and they have undergone
only eleven months imprisonment The High Court while
altering the conviction to Section 304 Part-11 IPC, altered
the sentence to imprisonment for period already E
undergone and directed to pay a sum of Rs.35000/- each
to the complainant Both the State and complainant have
challenged this alteration of sentence. Sentencing is an
important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime
objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, F
adequate, just and
proportionate sentence
commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and
the manner in which the crime is done. [Paras 10, 11]
[532-E-H; 533-A]
StateofU.P. v. Shri Kishan(2005) 10 SCC 420: (2004)
6 Suppl. SCR 530 - relied on.
3. The facts and circumstances of the case which have
G
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 3 S.C.R.
A been proved by the prosecution in bringing home the
guilt of the accused under Section 304 Part-II IPC
undoubtedly show a despicable aggravated offence
warranting punishment proportionate to the crime. The
sentence of eleven months awarded by the High Court
B to the respondents for the said conviction is too meagre
and not adequate and it would be travesty of justice. It
is true that each of the appellant was directed to pay
compensation of Rs.35000/- but no amount of
C compensation could relieve the family of victim from the
constant agony. The imposition of five years rigorous
imprisonment on each of the respondent nos.2 to 4 for
the conviction under Section 304 Part-11 IPC would meet
the ends of justice. [Para 12] [534-B-E]
D
Case Law Reference
(2004) 6 Suppl. SCR 530
relied on
Para 11
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
E 442 of2015
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2011 of the High
Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 284
of1998
WITH
Crl.A. Nos. 443/2015@SLP (Crl.) No. 1505/2012
Shankar Chillarge, A.G.A., SatyajitA. Desai, Ms. Anagha S.
G Desai, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Kishor Lambat, Rabin Majumder
fortheAppearing Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H C.Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.