Bombay High Court
Mangesh @ Bablu Ankush Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 July, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
1 Cri-Appeal-243-2018-judgment.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2018
Mangesh @ Bablu Ankush Gaikwad
Age 28 yrs. Occ. Nil,
r/o Panchshil Nagar, Bhusawal
Dist. Jalgaon
at present r/o Kasara Dumala
Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
....
Shri Rajendra K. Temkar, Advocate for the appellant
Shri S. P. Sonpawale, APP for respondent - State
....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
RESERVED ON : 03rd JULY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th JULY, 2021
J U D G M E N T :-
. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and order
dated 21.02.2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangamner, in Sessions Case No.5 of 2017. By the impugned
judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
therefore, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10)
1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2021 07:37:34 :::
2 Cri-Appeal-243-2018-judgment.doc
years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). In default
of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six (06) months.
2. After having heard the learned Advocate for the
appellant for a while, he came around to accept the judgment of
conviction. The learned Advocate, however, urged for reduction of
sentence of imprisonment of ten (10) years to the period already
undergone. In support of his submissions, he took me through the
evidence of the victim - Pradeep (PW1) and the Medical Officer
Dr. Rajendra (PW5).
3. The learned APP would, on the other hand, support the
impugned order on quantum of sentence as well.
4. It is in the evidence of the victim - Pradeep (PW1) that
the incidence took place on 02.10.2016 at 8.30 p.m. The appellant is
his cousin (son of maternal aunt). On the previous day, there was
quarrel between him and the appellant. At about 8.30 p.m. on
02.10.2016, the appellant came to him and questioned as to why did
he not give him money the previous day. The appellant threatened to
kill him. The appellant then assaulted him on the left ribs with a
2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2021 07:37:34 :::
3 Cri-Appeal-243-2018-judgment.doc
knife. On hearing the shouts, the wife of PW1 and brother came
there. The appellant fled.
5. The evidence of Pradeep (PW1) indicate that he was
indoor patient for fifteen days. He claimed to have been at home for
2-3 months next after the discharge from the hospital. The evidence
of the Medical Officer Dr. Rajendra (PW5) is however to the effect
that the injured was admitted to Tambe Hospital by 9.15 p.m. on
02.10.2016. He was indoor patient from 02.10.2016 to 10.10.2016.
The same indicates that Pradeep (PW1) was indoor patient for not
more than eight days. The nature of injury suffered by Pradeep
(PW1) was as under:-
"Stab injury over post aspect of left axilla directing
towards the chest is around 5 CM X 4 CM X 15 CM.
X-ray chest shows - hemothorax left side. ICD put of left
side with all aseptic precautions.
6. In the case of Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (2015)
11 SCC 588, it was held as under:
"11. The question of sentence is always a difficult
task requiring balancing of various considerations. The
question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to
be exercised on consideration of circumstances
aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. The
law courts have been consistent in the approach that a
3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2021 07:37:34 :::
4 Cri-Appeal-243-2018-judgment.doc
reasonable proportion has to be maintained between the
seriousness of the crime and the punishment. While it is
true that a sentence disproportionately severe should not
be passed that does not clothe the court with an option to
award the sentence manifestly inadequate. Justice
demands that courts should impose punishment befitting
the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of
the crime."
7. The appellant and PW1 (Pradeep), are cousins. At the
time of offence was committed, the appellant was 27 years of age.
He was serving as a Cleaner of a truck. On the preceding day of the
incidence, there had been quarrel between the two. As a result of the
injury, PW1 (Pradeep) had to be in hospital for not more than eight
days. The Medical Officer (PW5) has testified that the injury heals
within three weeks.
All these facts dictate my conscious to observe that
sentence of imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years is
disproportionately severe.
8. The appellant has been behind the bars since
03.10.2016. As such, he has been in jail for about a period of four
years and ten months. In my view, his having been behind the bars
for the said period is the sentence adequate or proportionate to the
crime committed.
4 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2021 07:37:34 :::
5 Cri-Appeal-243-2018-judgment.doc
9. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the appeal in
terms of the following order:
ORDER
The order sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years is hereby replaced with
the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years and ten
months. Rest of the terms of the impugned order to stand unaltered.
[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]
SMS
5 of 5
