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. 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]
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 better to restore their relation, if possible, but the compromise cannot be taken to be a solitary basis until the other aggravating and mitigating factors also support and are favourable to the accused for molding the sentence which always has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. [Para 29][91-B-D]
6. This Court has not been able to record its satisfaction in reference to the kind of compromise which has now been obtained and placed on record after 28 years of the incident and this Court cannot be oblivious of the sufferings which the victim has suffered for such a long time and being crippled for life and the leg and arm of the victim are amputated in the alleged incident and since then he has been fighting for life and is pursuing his daily chores with a prosthetic arm and leg and has lost his vital organs of his body and became permanently disabled and such act of the appellant is unpardonable. [Para 30][91-D-E]
Ram Pujan and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973)
2 SCC 456; Murali v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2021) 1 SCC 726; Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Karnataka and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2018) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.