The division judge bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S.Oka of the apex court in the case of Sahebrao Arjun Hon vs Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon & Ors held that the judicial discretion is always guided by various considerations such as the seriousness of the crime, the circumstances in which crime was committed and the antecedents of the accused. The Court is required to go by the principle of proportionality. If undue sympathy is shown by reducing the sentence to the minimum, it may adversely affect the faith of people in the efficacy of the law. It is the gravity of the crime that is the prime consideration for deciding what should be the appropriate punishment.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that when the appellant came near the shop of the accused, the accused called upon the appellant. After that, when the appellant approached the accused shop. It is alleged that accused no.11 objected to the appellant being in the company of one Vithobanana and described vithobanana as a beggar. Thereafter, accused no. 1 - 7 approached the spot and there was an exchange of words between the appellant and respondent no.1. At that time, Arjun Dada Hon (PW8) who is also a victim of offense came there and tried to pacify the respondent no.1.It is alleged that at that time, the accused no 11 caught hold of the collar of PW8 and abused him. When the appellant tried to intervene, accused no.11 slapped him. The incident ended there as the persons concerned dispersed from the spot.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that considering the injuries suffered sustained by the appellant, the trial court has shown leniency while imposing the sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34. It was also contended that he suffered life-threatening injuries on the left parietal region and left side of the neck. Lastly, it was also contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that there was absolutely no reason for the High Court to reduce the substantive sentence to a period of one year.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that if this Court is inclined to consider the appellant's submissions on the merits, the revision application may be remanded to the High Court. He contended that, while submissions on the merits of the conviction were made before the High Court, the High Court effectively considers only the submission made on behalf of the respondents in the alternative for substantially reducing the sentence. As a result, he would argue that the appellant's request for enhancement cannot be considered. The revision application may be remanded to the High Court if it is to be considered at all.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble apex court after considering the submissions stated that The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have concurrently found that the offenses punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC have been duly established by the prosecution.
Further, the high court has chosen a very lenient step in reducing the punishment by one year. It was held that as far as the sentencing is concerned, judicial discretion is always guided by various considerations such as the seriousness of the crime, the circumstances in which the crime was committed, and the antecedents of the accused. The Court is required to go by the principle of proportionality. If undue sympathy is shown by reducing the sentence to the minimum, it may adversely affect the faith of people in the efficacy of the law. It is the gravity of the crime which is the prime consideration for deciding what should be the appropriate punishment.
The maximum sentence for the offense punishable under Section 326 of IPC is imprisonment for life. Even after considering the nature of the serious injuries sustained by the appellant, the Trial Court took a lenient view by imposing a sentence of imprisonment of only 3 years. There was no provocation for respondents nos.1 to 4 to attack the appellant and the other victims. They came well prepared with the weapons of assault in front of the house of the appellant where the incident took place. Looking at the gravity of the offense, there was no warrant for showing leniency.
The appeal was partly allowed and respondents no. 1, 2, and 4 were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks from today to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in addition to the sentence imposed by the High Court.
CASE NAME- Sahebrao Arjun Hon vs Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon & Ors
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1499 OF 2022
DATE- 06.09.2022
CORUM- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S.Oka
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
