Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad vs State of Maharashtra and Others

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 victim and the community at large. So far as the first accused is concerned, the High Court was not right in reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon first accused. As pointed out earlier, the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years and increased the fine amount to Rs.25,000/- and part of the said fine amount was ordered to be paid as compensation to the injured PW-6 and PW-7. Since the enhanced compensation was paid by accused No.1 which is said to have been withdrawn by injured-victims, for conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, the first accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and six months. [Para 16] [578-G-H; 579-A-D]

3. So far as respondent Nos.3 and 4-accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, at the time of occurrence, they were not armed. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to have attacked the injured with fist and kicked and with sticks. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. So far as conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, the High Court took into consideration that accused No.2 was nineteen years old at the time of occurrence and accused No.3 was thirtyeight years old and keeping in view their age and family circumstances and that they were not having criminal antecedents, the High Court thought fit to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from six months to the period already undergone by them. Since accused Nos.2 and 3 were not armed with the deadly weapons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with their acquittal under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and the reduction of sentence of imprisonment under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. [Para 17][579-E-H]

State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh (2015) 3 SCC 441 : [2015] 1 SCR 709 ; Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 588 ; Sevaka Perumal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 3 SCC 471 : [1991] 2 SCR 711 – relied on.