Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad which reduced the sentence of imprisonment for the accused in a case of attempt to murder. The incident occurred on 24 January 2012 when accused No.1, Devraj, fired a pistol at Chandrakant (PW-6) hitting him in the chest, and also shot Suryakant (PW-7) in the knee when he intervened. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were also involved with sticks and stones. The trial court convicted all three accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction of accused No.1 under Section 307 IPC but reduced his sentence to five years, and converted the conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 from Section 307 to Section 326 IPC, sentencing them to the period already undergone. The appellant, the injured complainant Suryakant, appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the reduction of sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence of accused No.1 given the gravity of the offence, as the gunshot injury to the chest was capable of causing death. The court emphasized that sentencing must be proportionate to the offence and that undue sympathy undermines the justice system. The Supreme Court restored the sentence of seven years for accused No.1 under Section 307 IPC, while maintaining the fine and compensation orders. The appeal was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Sentencing - The High Court reduced the sentence of accused No.1 from seven years to five years for attempt to murder despite the victim sustaining a gunshot wound piercing the chest, which the doctor opined was capable of causing death. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in reducing the sentence, as the nature of injuries and the weapon used warranted a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. (Paras 12-13) B) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Proportionality - The court must impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence, considering the nature of injuries and the weapon used. Undue sympathy resulting in inadequate sentence undermines public confidence in the justice system. (Paras 12-13) C) Criminal Law - Compensation - Section 357 CrPC - The High Court enhanced the fine amount and directed compensation to the victims. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the compensation order but restored the original sentence of seven years for accused No.1. (Paras 5, 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 IPC from seven years to five years for accused No.1 and converting the conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 from Section 307 to Section 326 IPC with sentence to period already undergone.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. The sentence of accused No.1-Devraj under Section 307 IPC was restored to seven years' rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the trial court. The conviction and sentence of accused Nos.2 and 3 were not interfered with. The fine and compensation orders were maintained.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC
- sentencing discretion
- proportionality of sentence
- undue sympathy
- compensation under Section 357 CrPC
