As per case facts, the Appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act for firing a gunshot at the Complainant's head, causing a grievous injury with a bullet ...
Cr.A. 1196-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1196 of 2018
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1057 OF 2026
Jeevan Devram Shirsath
Aged 32 years
(At Kalyan District Prison, Kalyan)
R/o Om Tower, 6th Floor, Flat No. 606,
Ashok Nagar, Valdhuni, Kalyan (West)
District:Thane. .....APPELLANT
V/S.
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Thane)
2. Sarfaraj Akbar Ali Sayyed
(Through Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Thane) ....RESPONDENTS
Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w. Mr. Savvy Kolhekar, Ms. Juhi Kadu, for Appellant.
Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the Respondent No. 1-State.
Ms. Ashwini Jadhav, for Respondent No. 2- Complainant.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
RESERVED ON : 6
th
AUGUST, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 8
th
SEPTEMBER, 2026
-----------------
JUDGMENT : (Per Shreeram Shirsat J.)
1.The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant, the original
Accused No.1, challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction
Vishal Parekar …. 1
VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Date: 2026.09.08
11:40:00 +0530
Cr.A. 1196-2018
dated 04.08.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Kalyan,
District- Thane in Sessions Case No. 320/2015, whereby the Appellant has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian
Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs 1,00,000/- and in default to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for six months, for offence punishable under section
3 r/w section 25 of Arms Act to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one month, for offence punishable under Section 7 r/w
section 27 of Arms Act to undergo suffer rigorous Imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/-and in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one month. All sentences were directed to run
concurrently. The Appellant was acquitted under Section 120(B) of the IPC
and under Section 37(1) & 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
2.The other co-accused No. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were acquitted of all the
offences. Accused No. 5 had absconded and hence his trial was separated.
3.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
a] It is the case of the prosecution that one Sarfaraj Akbarali Sayyed,
the Complainant herein, was proceeding by his Ertiga on 07.06.2015
at around 3.45 p.m. It is further the case that the Appellant herein
Vishal Parekar …. 2
Cr.A. 1196-2018
had called the Complainant and asked him to come to Vallipeer
Chowk near S.Kumar Jewellers, Kalyan. Accordingly, the
Complainant went to Vallipeer Chowk and waited for the Appellant.
b] It is further the case of the prosecution that the Appellant and his
two associates alighted from a white coloured Hyundai Accent Car
and the Appellant fired a gun shot on the head of the Complainant,
as a result of which there was an injury to the upper side of the
Complainant’s right eye/eyebrow. It is further the case that the
associates of the Appellant who were present during the incident
were asking him to kill the Complainant. In the meanwhile, the
Complainant fell down on the ground, shouted for help and the
Appellant as well as his associates ran away.
c] It is further the case of the prosecution that the Complainant was
taken to Fortis Hospital by his friends, namely, Mosin, Jilan, Danish,
Saud and others, where the doctor operated upon him. It is also the
case of the prosecution that the Complainant was involved in a
money dispute with the Appellant and in order to take revenge, the
Appellant had caused the firearm injury.
d] It is further the case of the prosecution that, based on this
information, the Complainant lodged an FIR and Crime No. I-
Vishal Parekar …. 3
Cr.A. 1196-2018
556/2015 came to be registered under Section 307 r/w Section 34,
120(B) of the IPC, Sections 3, 25(1)(A) of The Arms Act and Sections
37(1), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act against the Appellant and
the other co-accused persons.
4.Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed
and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated
06.05.2017, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The Sessions
Case was numbered as Sessions Case No. 320/2015 The charges came to be
framed against the Appellant and 6 others under Sections 307, 120(B) of
the IPC and Sections 3 r/w 25, 4 r/w 25, 7 r/w 27 of The Arms Act and
Sections 37(1), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, to which the Appellant
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.To bring home the guilt of the Accused-Appellant, the prosecution
examined 9 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 9):
P.W NAME ROLE
1. Sarfaraj Akbarali Sayyed Victim and Complainant
2. Javed Abdul Shahid Ansari Witness who deposed about sale
of Hyundai vehicle (MH02-MA-
4777) to the Appellant
3. Mahesh Shankar Kadam Assistant Chemical Analyzer,
Ballistic Division.
4. Jagdish Chhaburao Bhambal API attached to Mahatma Phule
Chowk Police Station and;
Vishal Parekar …. 4
Cr.A. 1196-2018
Seizure panchnama dated
07.06.2015 of vehicle i.e. Hyundai
Accent car (MH -02-MA-4777)
5. Arun Rakhmaji Bhor Crime P.I. attached to Mahatma
Phule Chowk Police Station;
Spot panchnama dated
07.06.2015 relating to the
recovery of empty cartridges
6. Lalabaig Ahmadbaig Mirza Panch Witness
Disclosure panchnama and
Seizure panchnama dated
11.06.2015 relating to the
weapon i.e. ‘
banduk’
7. Dr. Satyanarayanan Shenoy Medical Officer (Neuro Surgeon)
at Fortis Hospital who performed
operation on the victim
8. Dattatray Narayan Pandhare Investigating Officer (I.O.)
9. Pratap Ramchandra
Dighavkar
ACP, Sanctioning authority under
Arms Act
6.After recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the
Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the plea of the
Appellant was that of complete denial.
7.Upon completion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge- 2,
Kalyan by judgment and order dated 04.08.2018 convicted the Appellant
for offences punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to
suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in
default, to suffer R.I. for 6 months; under Section 3 r/w Section 25 of Arms
Vishal Parekar …. 5
Cr.A. 1196-2018
Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
and in default, to undergo R.I. for 1 month and under Section 7 r/w
Section 27 of the Arms Act sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and pay a
fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo R.I. for 1 month, all sentences
to run concurrently. However, the Appellant was acquitted under Section
120(B) of the IPC and under Section 37(1), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.
8.Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge- 2, Kalyan, the Appellant has approached this
Court by way of the present Appeal.
9.This Court vide order dated 24.09.2021 directed the Appellant to add
the Original Complainant as a party to this Appeal and notice was issued to
the original complainant. The Complainant was served in the due course
and he has caused his appearance through advocate.
10.Heard the Ld. Counsel Adv. Aniket Vagal a/w Adv. Savvy Kolhekar
and Adv. Juhi Kadu for the Appellant, Ld. APP. Ms. Kaushik for the
Respondent No.1-State and Ld. Counsel Adv. Ashwini Bhikan Jadhav for
Respondent No. 2- The Original Complainant.
11.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant confined his arguments
primarily on the quantum of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions
Judge- 2, Kalyan to the Appellant. It was vehemently argued that Section
Vishal Parekar …. 6
Cr.A. 1196-2018
307 of the IPC does not prescribe any mandatory minimum sentence and
therefore, the quantum of sentence was required to be determined, taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It
was further contended by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the nature
and extent of injury caused to the victim is a relevant circumstance, which
ought to be taken into consideration. It was brought to the notice of this
Court that the injury sustained by the victim, although a firearm injury
caused to the brain of the Complainant, was not a fatal injury and did not
result in any permanent or life-threatening complication. It was submitted
that the Complainant has been living a healthy life since the occurrence of
the incident that was 11 years ago and even appeared before this Court to
validate the same. It was also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant
that the manner of occurrence of the incident does not demonstrate any
sustained or calculated attempts to cause death of the Appellant. There
were no continued or repeated attacks upon the victim to establish the
intention. Further, it was also pleaded by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant
that the long period of incarceration be taken into consideration which is
about 11 years and 10 months. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant lastly
pointed out that the Appellant is a first-time offender having no criminal
antecedents and that the Appellant is married and has a 3-year old child,
Vishal Parekar …. 7
Cr.A. 1196-2018
thereby showing potential for societal rehabilitation and the same may be
considered as mitigating circumstances and the sentence may be reduced to
whatever undergone by the Appellant.
12.The following judgments have been relied upon by the Ld. Counsel
for the Appellant, which categorically deal with the reduction of the
quantum of the sentence under Section 307 of the IPC.
(i) Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr. vs. State of Haryana
1
(ii) Ganesan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police
2
13.Per Contra, the Ld. APP for the Respondent-State vehemently
opposed the arguments posed by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, by
stating that the Appellant had caused the said injury to the Complainant
intentionally and the same is clearly discernible from the conduct of the
Appellant and the sequence of events. It was argued by the Ld. APP that the
procurement of the weapon i.e. the country made pistol, itself points to the
deliberate involvement of the Appellant in the offence. Further, it was also
argued that it is a matter of common knowledge that a firearm injury
inflicted upon the head, being a vital part of the body, is likely to result in
death. The Ld. APP also submitted that the Appellant, while causing the
said firearm injury, aimed at the head of the Complainant and was fully
1 2024 INSC 543
2 2025 INSC 158
Vishal Parekar …. 8
Cr.A. 1196-2018
conscious and aware that the natural consequences of his actions are likely
to cause death of the Complainant. Additionally, it was also contended by
Ld. APP that the Appellant firing the bullet from a close distance itself is a
suggestive and compelling circumstance which demonstrates the intention
of the Appellant to cause an injury that would result in the death of the
Complainant. Thus, it was lastly submitted that the quantum of sentence
being Imprisonment for Life was rightly awarded by the Additional Sessions
Judge- 2, Kalyan and warrants no interference.
14.The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 adopted and supported the
arguments advanced by the Ld. APP.
15.The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, submitted that he
did not wish to argue the present Appeal on merits, but urged the following
before this Court. Firstly, to consider his legal submissions based on the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Rana@Koka &
Anr. v. State of Haryana
(supra) and Ganesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Inspector of Police (supra). Secondly, to reduce the sentence in the
light of the mitigating circumstances arising from the facts of the case. It
was contended that the Appellant did not harbor any intention to cause
death of the Complainant, as is evident from the fact that, there was no
repeated firing of gun shots despite instigation from the co-accused. It was
Vishal Parekar …. 9
Cr.A. 1196-2018
submitted that the long period of incarceration and the fact that the
appellant is married and has a three-year-old child may be taken into
consideration in the overall assessment of the case.
16.As the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has not chosen to advance his
arguments on the merits of the Appeal and has sought to place reliance on
two judgments referred above, as the bedrock of his submissions, we are
only confining ourselves to ascertain, whether in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and the principles of law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the sentence awarded to the Appellant can be
reduced under Section 307 of the IPC.
17.Before adverting to the legal submissions, at this stage it will be
pertinent to mention that in the present case, the trial court, in para 63 of
the impugned judgment has given specific reasons as to why the Court
deemed it fit to impose sentence under the second part instead of the first
part of Section 307 IPC. The para reads as under:
“63] On thoughtful consideration of above submissions as well as
considering the nature of alleged offence, I find that in day time
the accused No. 1 had opened firing on the complainant which
resulted in head injury. At the backdrop of factual aspects it is
also one of the issue that the complainant had received said
bullet and which is still remained in his brain, the Doctor could
not withdraw that bullet as it was dangerous to his life. An
attempt to kill the complainant was made by accused No. 1 and
it was in public place. The offence itself is serious and therefore
no leniency can be awarded in favour of accused No. 1 Jeevan
Shirsath.”
Vishal Parekar …. 10
Cr.A. 1196-2018
18.The trial Court, in order to arrive at the above findings, has taken
into consideration several factors and thereafter deemed it fit to impose
Imprisonment for Life. For instance, the trial court primarily took into
consideration the gunshot injury caused by the Appellant to the victim from
a close range and was aimed directly at the head of the Complainant. The
trial court also took into consideration the deposition of P.W. 7- the Doctor,
who deposed that this injury was grievous in nature and fatal to life as the
bullet injury was caused in the brain and that the bullet lodged in the brain
could not be removed without risking the life of the Appellant. Further the
trial court also considered that the procurement of the
“banduk” (gun) in
itself, was a clear display of intent on the part of the Appellant.
19.At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the
Complainant is presently doing well, leads a normal and healthy life since
the incident, and had in fact appeared before this Court, and that in the
absence of any grievous injury or permanent impairment, the quantum of
sentence deserved to be reduced.
20.At this juncture, a profitable reference can be made to the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
State of M.P. vs. Saleem Alias
Chamaru and Another
3
, wherein it was held as under:
“12. To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential
3 (2005) 5 SCC 554
Vishal Parekar …. 11
Cr.A. 1196-2018
that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been
identified. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often
give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the
intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from
other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained
without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a
distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any.
Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person
assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the
culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that
the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be
sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the
person assaulted. What the court has to see is whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge
and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in
order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient
in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof.
13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there
is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction
between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has
to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the
section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC
cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the
victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.”
21.A similar principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of
State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Ors.
4
“13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there
is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction
between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has
to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the
Section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC
cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the
victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
4 (2009) 4 SCC 26.
Vishal Parekar …. 12
Cr.A. 1196-2018
…….
16. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will
be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a
given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the
accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application
of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is the intention or
knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury.”
22.A perusal of the above judgments, makes it abundantly clear that the
conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, specifically the second part
thereof, is concerned only with the causing of hurt, and not with the
consequence that follows therefrom. It is the act of causing hurt and it
being caused, pursuant to an act done with the intention or knowledge,
that attracts the second part and determines the punishment thereunder.
Further, what subsequently happens i.e. whether the victim recovers fully,
partially, or otherwise leads a normal life thereafter is a matter that does
not enter into this reckoning. The submission that the Complainant is
presently keeping well and has resumed a normal life, however true,
pertains to the consequence and not to the hurt itself, and cannot,
therefore, be countenanced as a ground for reducing the sentence
otherwise warranted in law. We accordingly find no substance in the
argument urged by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.
23.The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant relied upon
Amit Rana (supra) to
buttress his arguments that, the facts in that case were also very grave, as
Vishal Parekar …. 13
Cr.A. 1196-2018
the victim therein had received bullet injury on the spine because of which
the victim was paralyzed. The trial court while convicting the accused had
imposed a rigorous sentence of 14 years which was confirmed by the High
Court and finally the Hon’ble Apex Court, commuted the sentence from 14
years to 10 years despite the gravity of the facts. The Ld. Counsel for the
Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the following paragraphs:
“6. Section 307, IPC, makes it clear that to attract the said offence
the victim need not suffer any kind of bodily injury. The offence to
commit murder punishable under Section 307, IPC is constituted
by the concurrence of mens rea followed by actus reus, to commit
an attempt to murder though its accomplishment or sufferance of
any kind of bodily injury to the victim is not a ‘sine qua non’. In
other words, if a man commits an act with such intention or
knowledge and under such circumstances that if death had been
caused, the offence would have amounted to murder or the act
itself is of such a nature as would have caused death in the usual
course of an event, but something beyond his control prevented
that result, his act would constitute the offence punishable as an
attempt to murder under Section 307, IPC.
7. …….. Thus, it can be seen that the attempt to murder the
complainant caused the injury and resultantly he became
paralysed. When that be the consequence of the attempt to
murder, the case would definitely be fallen under the second part
of Section 307, IPC. On scanning the provisions under Section
307, IPC, we have already found that in case the victim suffered
hurt in terms of the second part of Section 307, IPC, the convict
can be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. In the event
the court did not consider that imprisonment for life is not to be
imposed the other option, going by the provision, is only to
impose such punishment as is mentioned in the first part of
Section 307, IPC. The first part, as noticed hereinbefore,
prescribes punishment with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to 10 years and also to pay fine. A bare
perusal of the second part of Section 307, IPC, would undoubtedly
show that it did not prescribe for imposition of punishment more
than what is prescribed under the first part thereof. We have
already noted that the maximum imprisonment permissible under
the first part of Section 307, IPC, is “imprisonment of either
description for a term which may not extent to 10 years and also
Vishal Parekar …. 14
Cr.A. 1196-2018
fine”. When in unambiguous terms the legislature prescribed the
maximum corporeal sentence imposable for the conviction under
Section 307, IPC, under the first part and when the court
concerned upon convicting the accused concerned thought it fit
not to impose imprisonment for life, the punishment to be handed
down to the convict concerned in any circumstance cannot exceed
the punishment prescribed under the first part of Section 307,
IPC. When this be the mandate under Section 307, IPC, the trial
Court in view of its decision not to award the punishment of
imprisonment for life could not have granted punishment to a
term exceeding 10 years. It is to be noted that the respondent-
State has not filed any appeal contending that the punishment
imposed on the appellants is liable to be enhanced to
imprisonment for life thus, we do not deem it necessary to go into
the question whether the punishment is to be enhanced. Thus, the
question is whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 14
years is permissible in law and if not, what should be the
comeuppance. The discussion as above with reference to Section
307, IPC, would thus go to show that imposition of rigorous
imprisonment for a term of 14 years for a conviction under
Section 307, IPC, is impermissible in law and it is liable to be
interfered with. Since the High Court had not gone into the
question as to how imprisonment for a term of 14 years or the
conviction under Section 307, IPC would be maintained and in
view of our conclusion as above, the judgment of the High Court
confirming the judgment of the trial Court awarding rigorous
imprisonment for 14 years calls for interference.
8. Since the conviction of the appellants under Section 307, IPC,
is declined to be interfered with by us, necessarily the punishment
for the said offence taking note of the gravity of the crime has to
be imposed. Since we are not proposing to enhance the sentence
to imprisonment for life and the only option is to bring down the
term of imprisonment from 14 years, there is absolutely no reason
to hear the appellants in-person.
9. We have taken note of the fact that as a consequence of the
attempt to do away with the life of the complainant, he had
suffered spine injury and became paralysed in terms of the second
part of the Section 307, IPC, the appellants are to be given the
maximum corporeal sentence imposable under the first part of
Section 307, IPC. Accordingly, the imposition of rigorous
imprisonment for 14 years each to the appellants is converted to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The order of
sentence with respect to fine is kept intact. The appeal is thus
allowed in part and the impugned judgment of the High Court
and the judgment of the trial Court in S.T. No.281/2016 qua the
appellants stands modified as above.”
Vishal Parekar …. 15
Cr.A. 1196-2018
24.The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant also relied upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ganesan (supra) and invited the
attention of this Court to the following paragraphs:
“7. This Court also in Amit Rana @ Koka Vs. State of Haryana2
held that a bare perusal of the second part of Section 307 of
I.P.C. would undoubtedly show that it did not prescribe for
imposition of punishment more than what is prescribed under
the first part thereof. The maximum imprisonment permissible
under the first part of Section 307 is 10 years and fine. When the
court thinks it fit, not to impose imprisonment for life, the
punishment in no circumstance can exceed the punishment
prescribed under first part of Sec.307 I.P.C.
8. On the above reasoning, the sentence of 12 years R.I. granted
by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained; since the maximum
sentence under Section 307, I.P.C., if life is avoided, can only be
a maximum of 10 years. Considering the entire circumstances,
the relationship between the parties and injuries caused, we are
of the opinion that a sentence of 7 years R.I. would suffice under
Section 307, IPC. Accordingly, we modify sentence in the
Appellate judgment under Section 307, as above. The sentence
handed over, under the other penal provisions of the I.P.C.
stands confirmed which sentences shall run concurrently as
directed by the Appellate Court. The Criminal Appeal stands
partly allowed.”
25.There can be no doubt to this proposition of law laid by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and we respectfully agree with the same. However, these
judgments will not come to the rescue of the present Appellant in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The core question in
the
Amit Rana (supra) was whether the sentence of RI for 14 years is
permissible in law and if not what should be the comeuppance. The Apex
Court was also of the opinion that the High Court had not gone into the
question as to how imprisonment for a term of 14 years or the conviction
Vishal Parekar …. 16
Cr.A. 1196-2018
under section 307 would be maintained and therefore sought to interfere in
the awarding of sentence of 14 years . It needs to be appreciated that the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Rana (supra)
was rendered in a specific factual and sentencing context where the
appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment for a term of 14 years by the
trial court, which was upheld by the High Court. It was in this backdrop
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, it is only when the court thinks it
appropriate not to impose imprisonment for life, that the punishment in no
circumstances can exceed the punishment prescribed under the first part of
Section 307 of the IPC and hence, reduced the sentence to 10 years.
26.The same principle is enunciated in the case of Ganesan (supra)
where the court observes that when the court thinks it fit, not to impose
imprisonment for life, the punishment in no circumstance can exceed the
punishment prescribed under first part of Sec.307 I.P.C. In both the cases
referred above the trial court while convicting under the second part of 307
IPC had not imposed imprisonment for life but had imposed 14 years in
Amit Rana (supra) and 12 years in Ganeshan (supra). The core postulate is
therefore the opinion of the court in imposing imprisonment for life or
otherwise. If the trial court or for that matter the appellate court feels that
in the facts and circumstances of the case punishment for life is not
Vishal Parekar …. 17
Cr.A. 1196-2018
warranted even if hurt is caused, then under the second part of section 307
IPC, the punishment which can be imposed cannot exceed more than the
punishment prescribed under the first part thereof.
27.Therefore, said judgments cannot be read in isolation from the facts
and circumstances in which the said principle was enunciated and the ratio
of the above decisions needs to be understood in the context in which it
was rendered. Another rationale behind the observation made by the Apex
Court seems to be that there should not be any ambiguity or arbitrariness in
sentencing. The punishment should be in conformity with what the statute
prescribes and in that context the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the
principle that if the court concerned upon convicting the accused thinks it
fit not to impose imprisonment for life, the punishment to be handed down
to the convict in any circumstances cannot exceed the punishment
prescribed under the first part of section 307 IPC.
28.A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Ahsan vs. State of U.P.
5
. The facts of the case of Ahsan
(supra) are similar to the case in hand.
“Brief facts:
2) The case of the prosecution is that on 08.10.2004 at about
7.30 p.m., when Iliyas-the Complainant, after having meal,
reached near the house of Naseem-his paternal uncle, he heard
noise coming out from that house. When Illiyas entered the
5 (2018) 13 SCC 420
Vishal Parekar …. 18
Cr.A. 1196-2018
house, he saw Manshad, Kamil and Ahsan(the appellant), all
from the same locality, armed with country made pistols in their
hands, abusing his cousin Istekhar @ Dholoo, Shahzad (son-in-
law) and Rukhsana, his niece with filthy language and they
made fires from their respective pistols with the intention of
killing them. The bullet fired by Manshad injured Istekhar, the
bullet fired by Kamil caused injury to Rukhsana on her abdomen,
who was pregnant and the bullet fired by Ahsan(appellant)
injured Shahzad in his head. All of them were in critical state.
The incidence was witnessed by Khurshid, Shamshad, Ikram etc.
Illiyas had given the ‘written report’ at Police Station, Shamli
after getting it written by Bhupendra Singh.
…...
10) In the light of limited notice issued, the only question which
is involved in this appeal is whether any case for interference in
the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant is made out.
So far as the merits of the case is concerned, it is not necessary
for us to examine because the conviction of the appellant in
relation to all the offences detailed in para 2 are already affirmed
by this Court’s order dated 09.07.2005.
…………….
13) It was his submission that the fact that victim Shahjad, to
whom the appellant caused the injury by gunshot having
survived, the Courts below should have taken into account this
fact and awarded the sentence in the first part of Section 307
IPC, which could extend only up to 10 years and fine.
14) It was also urged that appellant has already undergone
custody around 10 to 12 years till date and hence it would be
just and proper and in the interest of justice to reduce the
appellant’s sentence already undergone and he be set at liberty
by upholding his conviction.
………
18) Section 307 provides three punishments for three classes of
nature of the cases. One class of cases, which falls in first part of
the Section, prescribes a term “which may extend to ten years
and fine”, second class of cases, which falls in the second part of
the Section, prescribes either “imprisonment for life" or "such
punishment, which is prescribed in first part" and the third class
of cases is when any person offending under Section 307 IPC is
under sentence of imprisonment for life, causes hurt, be
punished with “death”.
19) So far as the punishment prescribed in first part of the
Section is concerned, it applies to the cases where a person does
any act with an intention or knowledge and under any
circumstances, caused death.
20) So far as the punishment prescribed in second part is
Vishal Parekar …. 19
Cr.A. 1196-2018
concerned, it applies to the cases where the person while
committing the act falling in first part, causes "hurt" to any
person.
21) Here, we are concerned with class of cases falling under part
one and two.
22) In our view, the two Courts below did not commit any error
in exercising their judicial discretion in the light of facts found
proved while awarding life imprisonment to the appellant.
23) It is for the reasons that firstly, the facts of the case squarely
fall in the second part of Section 307 IPC; secondly, gunshot
injury caused by the appellant to the victim-Shahjad was
grievous in nature, thirdly, the bullet injury was caused in the
head which was the most delicate and vital part of the body;
fourthly, the facts of the case satisfied the ingredients of the first
part of Section 307 IPC, namely, all the three accused which
included the appellant had gone to the house of victim-Shahjad
with a common intention to kill the members of family and in
order to accomplish the intention, each accused targeted one
member of the family present in the room which resulted in
death of a stillborn child of Rukhsana, who was hit by gunshot in
her abdomen and other two members suffered serious gunshot
injuries though both survived.
24) In our opinion, while sentencing the accused, the Court is
required to take into account several factors arising in the case,
such as the nature of offence committed, the manner in which it
was committed, its gravity, the motive behind the commission of
the offence, nature of injuries sustained by the victim, whether
the injuries sustained were simple or grievous in nature,
weapons used for commission of offence and any other
extenuating circumstances if any. Once these factors are
considered while imposing the sentence, there remains little
scope to interfere in quantum of punishment. Such is the case
here.”
29.Upon consideration of the above, we find that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in
Ahsan (supra) has categorically laid down that the nature of the
injury, its gravity, and the manner in which the offence was committed, etc.
are the factors that need to be taken into consideration while deciding the
quantum of sentence. In continuation to this, it was iterated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court that once the courts below duly consider these factors, little
Vishal Parekar …. 20
Cr.A. 1196-2018
scope remains for interference with the quantum of sentence awarded.
Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, we find that the
Trial Court has rightly weighed the aforementioned factors while awarding
the punishment of Imprisonment for Life. These factors seemed to have
weighed with the trial court while awarding imprisonment for life to the
Appellant. We, therefore, find that no case for interference with the
sentence awarded by the Trial Court is made out.
30.At this stage, we find it relevant to refer to the recent pronouncement
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the question of sentencing has also
engaged its attention and the guiding principles for exercise of sentencing
discretion by courts have been comprehensively laid down.
31.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the latest judgment of Parameshwari vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu
6
,
has been pleased to observe that “The Supreme
objective of law is the protection of society and creating a deterrence
against crime by imposing adequate punishment
”. Further the Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed as under:
“21….. The objective of punishment is not to seek vengeance for
the crime, rather, it is an attempt to reconstruct the damaged
social fabric of society in order to pull back its wheel on the
track.
22. The objective of punishment is to create an effective
deterrence so that the same crime/actions are prevented and
mitigated in future. The consideration to be kept in mind while
awarding punishment is to ensure that the punishment should
6 2026 INSC 164
Vishal Parekar …. 21
Cr.A. 1196-2018
not be too harsh, but at the same time, it should also not be too
lenient so as to undermine its deterrent effect.
……
25. This Court in the judgment of State of M.P. vs. Saleem Alias
Chamaru and Another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554 was
dealing with the validity of the judgment of the High Court
wherein the High Court had reduced the sentence awarded to
the accused (in conviction under Sections 307 and 330 of the
IPC) from 5 years to the period already undergone, i.e., six
months and 23 days. This Court, therein, while setting aside the
judgment of the High Court, held that undue sympathy shown
towards the accused while imposing an inadequate sentence
would do more harm to society and erode the trust of the public
in the justice system. The Court therein held as follows:
9. Imposition of sentence without considering its
effect on the social order in many cases may be in
reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the
crime e.g. where it relates to offences against
women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of
public money, treason and other offences involving
moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have
great impact on social order and public interest,
cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary
treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre
sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on
account of lapse of time in respect of such offences
will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run
and against societal interest which needs to be cared
for and strengthened by a string of deterrence inbuilt
in the sentencing system.
10. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate
punishment is not awarded for a crime which has
been committed not only against the individual
victim but also against the society to which the
criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be
awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it
should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity
and brutality with which the crime has been
perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting
public abhorrence and it should “respond to the
society's cry for justice against the criminal”.
……….. …………
28. At this juncture, it is also imperative for us to mention that
retribution is not the ultimate aim of our criminal justice system,
rather it hinges on principles of reformation and restitution. The
criminal justice system aims to achieve the twin objectives of
creating a deterrence against crime and also providing an
Vishal Parekar …. 22
Cr.A. 1196-2018
opportunity for reformation to the offender. Due consideration
has also been provided by our legal system to the rights of the
victim, who essentially are the first sufferers of the crime.
………. ………….
34. ……We have observed a trend amongst various High Courts
wherein the sentences awarded to the accused persons by the
Trial Court are reduced capriciously and mechanically, without
any visible application of judicial mind. Considering the gravity
of the situation as thus, we have culled out certain basic factors,
which are to be kept in mind by the courts while dealing with
imposition of sentence, in line with the view taken by this Court
in the aforementioned cases. The said factors are enunciated as
below:
A. Proportionality: Adherence to the principle of “just deserts”
ought to be the primary duty of the courts. There should be
proportionality between the crime committed and the
punishment awarded, keeping in consideration the gravity of the
offence.
B. Consideration to Facts and Circumstances: Due consideration
must be given to the facts and circumstances of the case,
including the allegations, evidence and the findings of the trial
court.
C. Impact on Society: While imposing sentences, the courts shall
bear in mind that crimes essentially impair the social fabric of
the society (of which the victim(s) is/are an indispensable part)
and erodes public trust. The sentence should be adequate to
maintain the public trust in law and administration, however,
caution should also be taken, and the Court shall not be swayed
by the outrage or emotions of the public and must decide the
question independently.
D. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: The courts, while
deciding the sentence or modifying the sentence, must weigh the
circumstances in which the crime was committed, and while
doing so, the court must strike a fair balance between the
aggravating and the mitigating factors.”
32.Upon consideration of the above, we find that the Hon'ble Apex
Court has cautioned against reduction of sentences in a mechanical manner
by the Appellate Courts. Applying the principles laid down in the above-
mentioned case, we have carefully considered the submission of the
Vishal Parekar …. 23
Cr.A. 1196-2018
Appellant regarding reduction in the quantum of sentence. We have given
our thoughtful consideration to the case in hand. We have also examined
the evidence on record and carefully perused the impugned judgment to
satisfy ourselves regarding the correctness of the same, even though the Ld.
Counsel for the Appellant chose not to delve into it. We are of the opinion
that in the facts of the case the trial court has rightly come a conclusion
that the offence itself is serious and therefore no leniency can be awarded.
We are also not persuaded to take a different view after taking into
consideration the intention and knowledge on the part of the Appellant and
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. vs. Saleem
Alias Chamaru and Another, State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Ors, Ahsan vs.
State of U.P and Parameshwari vs. The State of Tamil Nadu supra and
therefore the question of reducing the sentence to the first part of section
307 IPC in the facts of the case is not warranted.
33.Taking into account the overall conspectus of the matter, we are not
inclined to interfere in the quantum of punishment or to hold that the
Appellant is entitled for any lesser punishment.
34.Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Hence, the following order.
Vishal Parekar …. 24
Cr.A. 1196-2018
ORDER
1] The appeal stands dismissed.
2] Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar …. 25
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....