The Supreme Court today held that courts have to keep in view the interest of the victim and society at large when awarding punishment..The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion for the courts and has to be exercised on consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, a Bench of Justice R Banumathi and AS Bopanna ruled..While considering the quantum of sentence, the courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In particular, the nature of injuries caused in the occurrence and the weapon used which will have bearing on the question of sentence are to be taken into account. Courts are bound to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence, the Bench stated..The judgment was delivered in an appeal against a decision of the Bombay High Court which had affirmed the conviction of accused Devraj under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC but reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him from seven years to five years..The appellant-complainant had filed the current appeal challenging the reduction of sentence of imprisonment of the respondent..Case of the prosecution was that on January 24, 2012 at about 05.30 PM, Chandrakant (PW-6) was proceeding towards his land via Pangaon ‘T’ point. Respondent No.2 Devraj (A1) along with respondent No.3 Ashish (A2) and respondent No.4 Balaji (A3) were standing near the mobile shop of one Prahlad Joshi. They asked PW-6-Chandrakant why he had obstructed respondent No.4 Balaji (A3) from spreading rubble in his field and there was some exchange of words between them. In this quarrel, Devraj (A1) took out a pistol from his waist and fired one shot at Chandrakant on his chest..Hearing the sound, Suryakant (PW-7), Shivaji (PW-5) and others rushed to the spot. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were alleged to be holding stick and stone respectively in their hands. When Suryakant tried to intervene, accused No.1 fired a bullet from his pistol which hit on the left knee of Suryakant..When Shivaji Phad (PW-5) tried to intervene, accused persons beat him with fists and also inflicted a knife blow on him causing him grievous hurt. The accused then fled away. Injured PW-6 and PW-7 were taken to the hospital and were given treatment..Suryakant lodged the complaint based on which FIR was registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 323 and 506 IPC. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 307, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act..The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each with default clause. The trial court also convicted them under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with default clause..In the appeal filed before the High Court, the High Court affirmed the conviction of accused No.1-Devraj under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC but reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him to five years. Additionally, the High Court directed accused Devraj to pay a fine of Rs.25,000. The High Court also convicted Devraj under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him to the period already undergone by him and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.15,000..The complainant Suryakant appealed against the reduction in the sentence before the Supreme Court..The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Devraj shot a bullet in the chest Chandrakant which pierced through his chest and came out from the backside. The injury sustained by Chandrakant was grievous in nature which was capable of causing death. Hence, the High Court was not right in showing undue sympathy to the respondent-accused and reducing the sentence of imprisonment..The Court noted that a person committing an offence under Section 307 IPC can be ordered to undergo imprisonment for life. To justify conviction under Section 307 IPC, intention of causing death or that it was done with the intention of causing such injury which is likely to cause death is necessary to constitute the offence..Although the nature of injury actually caused would be of considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, the Court stated..Based on the evidence on record, the Court opined that the attempt by accused Devraj was with an intention to teach Chandrakant a lesson because Chandrakant had opposed accused No.3, Balaji from spreading rubble in his field. There was some hot exchange of words between them..Devraj carrying the pistol shot at Chandrakant on his chest. When Suryakant tried to interfere, Devraj shot at Suryakant too, the Court noted..The Court then proceeded to discuss the principles in relation to the quantum of sentence..The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion for the courts and has to be exercised on consideration of facts and circumstances of the case. Though the court has discretion in awarding the sentence, it should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court has to record brief reasons to explain the choice of sentence. The order reads:.“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.”.In the instant case, the Court held that considering the nature of injuries caused to Chandrakant i.e. gunshot wounds in the chest and the opinion of Doctor that the injuries caused were capable of causing death, the High Court was not right in reducing the sentence awarded to Devraj..When the trial court had exercised its discretion in imposing seven years of sentence of imprisonment, the High Court ought to have kept in view the weapon used by Devraj and the nature of injuries caused to Chandrakant and the opinion of the Doctor..Interestingly, the Supreme Court also observed that 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 when awarding punishment..“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.”.It, therefore, set aside the Bombay High Court judgment to the extent it reduced the sentence of Devraj. It ordered Devraj to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and six months..[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court today held that courts have to keep in view the interest of the victim and society at large when awarding punishment..The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion for the courts and has to be exercised on consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, a Bench of Justice R Banumathi and AS Bopanna ruled..While considering the quantum of sentence, the courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In particular, the nature of injuries caused in the occurrence and the weapon used which will have bearing on the question of sentence are to be taken into account. Courts are bound to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence, the Bench stated..The judgment was delivered in an appeal against a decision of the Bombay High Court which had affirmed the conviction of accused Devraj under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC but reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him from seven years to five years..The appellant-complainant had filed the current appeal challenging the reduction of sentence of imprisonment of the respondent..Case of the prosecution was that on January 24, 2012 at about 05.30 PM, Chandrakant (PW-6) was proceeding towards his land via Pangaon ‘T’ point. Respondent No.2 Devraj (A1) along with respondent No.3 Ashish (A2) and respondent No.4 Balaji (A3) were standing near the mobile shop of one Prahlad Joshi. They asked PW-6-Chandrakant why he had obstructed respondent No.4 Balaji (A3) from spreading rubble in his field and there was some exchange of words between them. In this quarrel, Devraj (A1) took out a pistol from his waist and fired one shot at Chandrakant on his chest..Hearing the sound, Suryakant (PW-7), Shivaji (PW-5) and others rushed to the spot. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were alleged to be holding stick and stone respectively in their hands. When Suryakant tried to intervene, accused No.1 fired a bullet from his pistol which hit on the left knee of Suryakant..When Shivaji Phad (PW-5) tried to intervene, accused persons beat him with fists and also inflicted a knife blow on him causing him grievous hurt. The accused then fled away. Injured PW-6 and PW-7 were taken to the hospital and were given treatment..Suryakant lodged the complaint based on which FIR was registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 323 and 506 IPC. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 307, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act..The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each with default clause. The trial court also convicted them under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with default clause..In the appeal filed before the High Court, the High Court affirmed the conviction of accused No.1-Devraj under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC but reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him to five years. Additionally, the High Court directed accused Devraj to pay a fine of Rs.25,000. The High Court also convicted Devraj under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him to the period already undergone by him and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.15,000..The complainant Suryakant appealed against the reduction in the sentence before the Supreme Court..The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Devraj shot a bullet in the chest Chandrakant which pierced through his chest and came out from the backside. The injury sustained by Chandrakant was grievous in nature which was capable of causing death. Hence, the High Court was not right in showing undue sympathy to the respondent-accused and reducing the sentence of imprisonment..The Court noted that a person committing an offence under Section 307 IPC can be ordered to undergo imprisonment for life. To justify conviction under Section 307 IPC, intention of causing death or that it was done with the intention of causing such injury which is likely to cause death is necessary to constitute the offence..Although the nature of injury actually caused would be of considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, the Court stated..Based on the evidence on record, the Court opined that the attempt by accused Devraj was with an intention to teach Chandrakant a lesson because Chandrakant had opposed accused No.3, Balaji from spreading rubble in his field. There was some hot exchange of words between them..Devraj carrying the pistol shot at Chandrakant on his chest. When Suryakant tried to interfere, Devraj shot at Suryakant too, the Court noted..The Court then proceeded to discuss the principles in relation to the quantum of sentence..The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion for the courts and has to be exercised on consideration of facts and circumstances of the case. Though the court has discretion in awarding the sentence, it should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court has to record brief reasons to explain the choice of sentence. The order reads:.“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.”.In the instant case, the Court held that considering the nature of injuries caused to Chandrakant i.e. gunshot wounds in the chest and the opinion of Doctor that the injuries caused were capable of causing death, the High Court was not right in reducing the sentence awarded to Devraj..When the trial court had exercised its discretion in imposing seven years of sentence of imprisonment, the High Court ought to have kept in view the weapon used by Devraj and the nature of injuries caused to Chandrakant and the opinion of the Doctor..Interestingly, the Supreme Court also observed that 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 when awarding punishment..“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.”.It, therefore, set aside the Bombay High Court judgment to the extent it reduced the sentence of Devraj. It ordered Devraj to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and six months..[Read Judgment]
