A Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S. Oka while partly allowing an appeal against the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD ruled that the Gravity of offense should be the main consideration when the sentence is awarded in an offense and directed three accused persons to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months in addition to the fine of Rs. 40,000/-imposed by the High Court.

The high court had reduced the sentence of imprisonment of the accused who stood convicted for the offense under sections 326, 324 & 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The bench also said that while reducing the sentence, the mitigating circumstances shall also be considered in a judicious manner.

The Bench of Supreme Court held as under in Para 12 and 13:-

12. As far as the sentencing is concerned, 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 law.   It is the gravity of the crime that is the prime consideration for deciding what should be the appropriate punishment.  

13. Perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that there is no finding recorded regarding the existence of any relevant mitigating circumstance in favour of the respondent nos.1,2 and 4. It is always the duty of the Court to balance aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances at the time of imposing sentence.  Perusal of the findings recorded by the Trial Court shows that the appellant suffered total 11 injuries on his person. For four injuries, stitches were required to be applied. The evidence of Dr.Shinde (PW­11) describes the injuries in detail. On the basis of X­ray films produced on record, Dr.Shinde pointed out that depressed fracture on left parietal region was seen.   Dr.Kshirsagar   (PW­12),  under whom the appellant was admitted as indoor patient has stated that the condition of the appellant was serious when he was brought to him. In fact, the case of the prosecution is that even a dying declaration of the appellant was recorded. Even the other injured witness Arjun (PW­8) suffered five injuries out of which one was on frontal parietal area. As against this, there are no major mitigating circumstances in favour of the respondent nos.1,2 and 4.

read the full judgment:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/4770/4770_2017_3_1502_37992_Judgement_06-Sep-2022.pdf

Case Details:-

Criminal Appeal No. 1499/2022

Sahebrao Arjun Hon                … APPELLANT(S)
v.
Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon & Ors.          ... RESPONDENT(S)