JUDGEMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J. :---Since these three connected matters arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned Judgement, we propose disposing them off by one judgment. 2.The matters before us, arise out of a Judgment dated 29-8-1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1982. By the said Judgment, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the four accused persons in the manner stated hereinafter :- (i) Narshya Bhaga Gaund: U/s 395 r/w 397 I.P.C. to 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer 3 months R.I. (ii) Baburao Narshya Gaund, Narayan Anjayya Gaund and Sailu Niranna Ghetari: U/s 395 I.P.C. to 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer R.I. for 1 month each. 3.Through Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983 the four accused persons named in the preceeding paragraph, have challenged the aforesaid convictions and sentences. Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1983 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra, under section 377(1) Cr.P.C., for enhancement of the sentence of the respondents. Criminal Revision Application No. 466 of 1983 arises out of a suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence issued by Tated, J., on 13-10-1983 against respondent Narshya Bhaga Gaund. 4.Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :- Complainant Gangubai Bala Gaund P.W. 3, along with her husband Bala Gaund P.W. 5, her son Ramu, P.W. 6, her servants Shankar, P.W. 10, Gangya and Sushila (not examined) was living at the time of the incident in village Nampur. It is alleged that in between her husband Bala Gaund and appellant Narshya Bhaga Gaund, there was an enmical strain. The reason for the same as has emerged in the evidence of Bala Gaund and Gangubai is that Bala Gaund used to deal with toddy business in villages Nampur, Morane, Shiwar, Jaikheda and Taharabad and the appellant Narshya only had a licence for running the toddy shop in village Karanjgavan. It appears from the evidence that he was illicitly selling liquor in Nampur. This resulted in rivalry between him and Bala. The evidence also indicates that many complaints were made to the Excise Department by Bala and his servants in regard to this illegal liquor business of Narshya. It appears from the evidence that he was illicitly selling liquor in Nampur. This resulted in rivalry between him and Bala. The evidence also indicates that many complaints were made to the Excise Department by Bala and his servants in regard to this illegal liquor business of Narshya. The net result was that relations between Bala and Narshya had become so much embittered and strained that on 23-12-1981, in the office of the Excise Inspector Mr. Sudhakar Sonawane, P.W. 9, Narshya threatened Nago Aher P.W. 11 that he would commit murders of Balya (Bala Gaund) and his family members if complaints continued to be lodged against him. According to the prosecution, on the night of 28-12-1981, at about 9 p.m., after taking their dinner, the informant Gangubai and others slept. Gangubai her husband Bala Gaund, her son Ramu and servant Sushila were sleeping on the backside of the premises of their toddy shop, in village Nampur. Her servants Shankar, P.W. 10, Sailu and Gangya were sleeping in the shop premises. At about 3-3.30 A.M., Bala Gaund got up, to urinate. He had come outside his house for that purpose. While returning after urinating, he saw the appellants standing near the window of the shop premises. He recognised them on account of street light. As soon as he stepped inside the shop, Narshya inflicted an axe blow on his head and Vyankat (absconding accused) inflicted a blow with a iron rod on the same part of the body. Other three accused namely Baburao, Narayan and Sailu, who were armed with sticks, did not assault him. Pursuant to the assault launched by Narshya and Vyankat, Bala Gaund fell down and became unconscious. It is alleged that while being assaulted, Bala Gaund raised cries and hearing the same his servant Shankar, ran to his rescue. Thereupon, Vyankat gave a blow with an iron rod on his head. He too became unconscious. The evidence is that Gangubai also ran to the rescue of Bala Gaund but, her attempt was foiled by Vyankat and Narshya who assaulted her. She also became unconscious pursuant to the assault launched on her. It is alleged that after assaulting Gangubai, Bala Gaund and Shankar, the accused persons on a large-scale looted belongings of Bala Gaund. The same was witnessed by Ramu. In the F.I.R. list of the looted property is mentioned. She also became unconscious pursuant to the assault launched on her. It is alleged that after assaulting Gangubai, Bala Gaund and Shankar, the accused persons on a large-scale looted belongings of Bala Gaund. The same was witnessed by Ramu. In the F.I.R. list of the looted property is mentioned. On a perusal of the F.I.R. it becomes evident that the looted articles included jewellery, clothes, and cash to the tune of Rs. 3.950/- and the total value of the looted property was Rs. 12,776/-. Witness Ramu, son of Gangubai and Bala Gaund, who fortunately escaped being injured, raised cries after the accused persons ran away and hearing the same, Vasant Babare, P.W. 7 and some others came. Vasant left for calling Dr. Nikam P.W. 8. The evidence is that Dr. Nikam arrived at 3.30-3.45 a.m. He gave first-aid-treatment to the victims. While giving treatment to Bala Gaund, he asked him as to what had happened. On that he replied that Narshya and his associates had assaulted him. He also told him that his articles had been looted. Since the victims were in a precariously injured condition, Dr. Nikam referred them to the Medical Officer for the necessary examination. 5.The evidence is that the three victims after being examined by Dr. Nikam, came to Nampur Dispensary. There at 8.30 a.m. on 28-12-1981, on the dictation of Gangubai P.W. 3, P.S.I. Niranjan Bhoyar P.W. 13 recorded the F.I.R. On the basis of the F.I.R. P.H.C. Mhatre P.W. 12 of Jaikheda Police Station registered an offence against accused persons. 6.The injuries of victims namely Bala Gaund, Gangubai and Shankar were medically examined same day i.e. 28-12-1981 at 10 a.m. 11.30 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. respectively, at Nampur Dispensary, by Dr. Mukund Deshpande P.W. 1. On the person of Bala Gaund, the doctor found the following injuries :- 1. Incised wound on right parietal region of the scalp 8" x 1" by 1/2". 2. Incised wound over vertex 2" x 1" x 1/2". 3. Incised wound above right ear, 1" x 1/2" x 1/2". 4. Incised wound left parietal region of the scalp. 5. Contused lacerated wound below right eye, 1" x 1/2" x 1/4". 6. Swelling on right lower jaw, 3" x 2" x 1". In the opinion of the doctor, injuries Nos. Incised wound over vertex 2" x 1" x 1/2". 3. Incised wound above right ear, 1" x 1/2" x 1/2". 4. Incised wound left parietal region of the scalp. 5. Contused lacerated wound below right eye, 1" x 1/2" x 1/4". 6. Swelling on right lower jaw, 3" x 2" x 1". In the opinion of the doctor, injuries Nos. 1 to 4 could be caused by a sharp cutting instrument and injuries No. 5 and 6 could have been inflicted by a hard blunt object. The doctor also opined that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were serious. On the person of Gangubai, the doctor found the following injuries :- 1. Contused lacerated wound, on right eyebrow, 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" 2. Contused lacerated wound, behind right ear 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2". 3. Scratching wound on left side of the neck 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/8". 4. Swelling on left side of neck, near about injury No. 3, 1" x 1/2" x 1/2". The doctor opined that these injuries were attributable to a hard and blunt object. On the person of Shankar, the doctor found the following injuries :- 1. Contused lacerated wound, right parietal region of the scalp 2" x 1/2" x 1/2". 2. Contused lacerated wound on the vertex 1½" x 1/2" x 1/2". In his opinion, the said injuries were attributable to a hard blunt object. It is pertinent to point out that the evidence of Dr. Deshpande is that the injuries of the victims were caused within 24 hours. It may also be mentioned that in view of the seriousness of the injuries sustained by Bala Gaund, Dr. Deshpande referred him to the Civil Hospital, Nasik. 7.From the evidence of Dr. Shriniwas Kale, P.W. 4, of Civil Hospital, Nasik, it emerges that Bala Gaund was referred on 31-12-1981. He deposed that there were injuries on his person and that he took the X-ray of his skull, and noticed linear fracture in relation to injury No. 5. In his evidence, he has described injury No. 5 as a stitched wound on right parieto-occipital area above 6 inch in length. 8.Investigation of the case was conducted by P.S.I. Niranjan Bhoyar, P.W. 13. On 28-12-1981, itself, he interrogated four witnesses, including Shankar P.W. 10, Same day, he drew a panchanama of the scene of the offence and attached a lungi and a blood-stained kopari of Bala Gaund. 8.Investigation of the case was conducted by P.S.I. Niranjan Bhoyar, P.W. 13. On 28-12-1981, itself, he interrogated four witnesses, including Shankar P.W. 10, Same day, he drew a panchanama of the scene of the offence and attached a lungi and a blood-stained kopari of Bala Gaund. From the place of the incident, he took blood stained earth. During investigation, he learnt that the stolen articles were lying in Morane Shiwar. He found a cash box, some documents and other articles lying there and attached them under a panchanama. Thereafter, that very, day, he recorded the statement of seven witnesses, including Bala Gaund P.W. 5. He arrested the four appellants. On 5-1-1982, he recorded the statement of Dr. Nikam. During investigation, he also interrogated Excise Inspector Sonawane, P.W. 9. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet on 23-3-1982. 9.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court, all the four accused persons were charged on a dual count, namely sections 395 and 397 of I.P.C. To the said charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Four of them namely Gangubai, Bala Gaund, Ramu and Shankar, P.Ws. 3, 5, 6, and 10 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses. In defence, no witness was examined. After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge found the appellants guilty in the manner stated in para 2. He sentenced them in the manner stated in the said paragraph. 10.Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences, the four appellants have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentence, handed down to the respondents, the state of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1983 for enhancement of the sentence of the respondents. Criminal Revision Application No. 466 of 1983 arises out of a suo motu notice for enhancement. The said notice was issued on 13-10-1983 by Tated, J., while admitting and granting bail to the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983. The notice for enhancement was only issued vis-a-vis respondent No. 1 Narshya Bhaga Gaund. 11.We have heard Mr. Criminal Revision Application No. 466 of 1983 arises out of a suo motu notice for enhancement. The said notice was issued on 13-10-1983 by Tated, J., while admitting and granting bail to the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983. The notice for enhancement was only issued vis-a-vis respondent No. 1 Narshya Bhaga Gaund. 11.We have heard Mr. A.S. Rao for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983 and for respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1983 and Criminal Revision Application No. 466 of 1983. We have heard Ms V.K. Tahilramani, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983, for appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1983 and for the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 466 of 1983. We have also perused the evidence on record. After giving our most anxious consideration to the matter, we are squarely satisfied that there is no merit in Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983 and there is merit in Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1983 and Criminal Revision Application No. 466 of 1983. Hence, in our view, Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983 deserves to be dismissed and the latter two matters deserve to be allowed. 12.The mainstay of the prosecution is the testimony of the three injured witnesses namely Gangubai, Bala Gaund and Shankar, P.Ws. 3,5 and 10 respectively. We do not propose narrating the account furnished by them in detail because it is on the basis of the examination-in-chief of their statements, that we have set out the prosecution story in para 3 of our Judgment. To put it in short, the prosecution case as emerging from their evidence, is that on account of the rivalry over the toddy business, there was an acute enmical strain between appellant Narshya on the one hand and Bala Gaund, P.W. 5 on the other. It was on account of this enmity that the respondent Narshya along with his son Baburao, servants Narayan and Sailu and the absconding accused Vyankat, launched an assault on Bala Gaund, Shankar and Gangubai, sometimes between 3 a.m. to 3.30 on 28-12-1981. The evidence is that Narshya was armed with an axe, Vyankat with an iron rod and the remaining persons with sticks. The evidence is that Narshya was armed with an axe, Vyankat with an iron rod and the remaining persons with sticks. The evidence further is that Narshya and Vyankat with an axe and a iron rod respectively launched an assault on the head of Bala Gaund who fell down and became unconscious as a result thereof and thereafter when, Shankar ran to his rescue, Vyankat assaulted Shankar. The evidence further is that when Gangubai ran to the rescue of Bala Gaund, Narshya and Vyankat assaulted her, It has also come in the evidence of Rama Gaund P.W. 6 that the appellants looted the property belonging to his parents. 13.In our considered Judgment, the testimony of the three injured eye-witnesses as well as of Rama, inspires implicit confidence. The manner of assault as deposed to by the three injured witnesses, is corroborated by the nature of the injuries found on their person. In the earlier part of our Judgment, we have extensively set out the injuries suffered by the victims. We have also mentioned that Dr. Mukund Deshpande who had examined the three victims candidly stated that the injuries could be caused by an axe, iron bars and sticks. In our view, the corroboration of ocular account by the medical evidence lends tremendous reassurance to the former. We are satisfied that these eye-witnesses have given a truthful version of the incident and have introduced no exaggeration in their testimony. We say this because, they have not referred to the incident in a parrot-like manner. Each of them has only deposed what they had actually seen. 14.Assurance is also lent to the ocular account by the prompt F.I.R. of the incident. The evidence is that the incident took place between 3 a.m. to 3.30 a.m. on 28-12-1981 and the F.I.R. was recorded within five hours of the same i.e. at 8.30 a.m. the same day by P.S.I. Niranjan Bhoyar at Nampur Dispensary, on the dictation of Gangubai. Criminal Courts attach great importance to the lodging of a prompt F.I.R. The same substantially eliminates the possibility of embellishments and of consultation in its lodging. In our view, this prompt F.I.R. in which the accused persons are named goes a long way in establishing the authenticity of the prosecution case. 14A. Criminal Courts attach great importance to the lodging of a prompt F.I.R. The same substantially eliminates the possibility of embellishments and of consultation in its lodging. In our view, this prompt F.I.R. in which the accused persons are named goes a long way in establishing the authenticity of the prosecution case. 14A. Assurance is also lent to the prosecution case by the circumstance that there was a very strong motive for the appellants to have committed the crime. In para 3, we have set out that motive. In short, the motive was that on account of toddy business, there was a rivalry between Narshya and Bala Gaund P.W. 5. The relations between them had become embittered to such an extent, that barely five days before the incident i.e. on 23-12-1981, in the premises of Excise Office in Malegaon, in the presence of Excise Inspector Sonawane, P.W. 9, and P.W. 11 Nago, Narshya had threatened that he would kill Bala Gaund and his family members. We are impressed both by the remote motive and the proximate motive for the incident. In our considered Judgment, had the proximate motive not been true then Excise Inspector Sonawane, who was a wholly independent person, would not have deposed about it. Existence of this motive probablises the participation of all the four appellants; Narshya because, enmity was with him, Baburao because, he was Narshya's son, Narayan and Sailu because, they were Narshya's servants. 15.We have also no hesitation in believing the evidence of Ramu who deposed about looting by the four appellants. Since he was a child witness, the trial Judge took the necessary precaution of ascertaining the level of his intelligence and of ascertaining as to whether he understoods the sanctity of oath, by conducting a preliminary examination. We have gone through the evidence of Ramu and we find that the same inspires implicit confidence. We have no hesitation in believing him when he says that it were the four appellants who looted the articles belonging to his parents. Had the prosecution wanted to create false evidence in respect of the looting of articles, it could have very well made the three injured witnesses depose about looting. That it has not done so, speaks miles and miles of the honesty of the prosecution in the instant case. Had the prosecution wanted to create false evidence in respect of the looting of articles, it could have very well made the three injured witnesses depose about looting. That it has not done so, speaks miles and miles of the honesty of the prosecution in the instant case. 16.We would do well to remember that the accused persons were known to the four eye-witnesses from before the incident and hence there must not have been any difficulty for the said witnesses in recognising them in street light which the evidence of record shows was burning just in front of Bala Gaund's house. It is also common knowledge that known persons can be recognised by the timbre of their voice, gait etc. See para 4 of A.I.R. 1965 S.C. page 712, (Kripal Singh v. State of U.P.)1. 17.Pursuant to the above discussion, we are squarely satisfied that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in convicting appellants Baburao, Narayan and Sailu under section 395 I.P.C. and appellant Narshya under section 395 read with 397 I.P.C. The evidence of the eye-witnesses which has been rightly believed by the learned trial Judge, shows that Narshya was armed with an axe and used it in the incident. An axe is a deadly weapon, within the terms of the expression "deadly weapon" as used in section 397 I.P.C. That being so, we are implicitly satisfied that Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983 preferred by the four appellants assailing their convictions and sentences has to be dismissed. 18.We now take up Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1983 preferred by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of the sentence of the respondents. We are alive to the law on the subject. We can do no better than to refer to the oft-quoted decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1955 Supreme Court, page 778 (Bed Raj...Appellant v. State of U.P.....Respondent)2. The observations made in para 15 of the said Judgment throw light on the considerations to be borne in mind by the Appellate Court while deciding the issue of enhancement of sentence, We are extracting those observations. The observations made in para 15 of the said Judgment throw light on the considerations to be borne in mind by the Appellate Court while deciding the issue of enhancement of sentence, We are extracting those observations. They read thus :- "A question of sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate Court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the Judgment; see for example the observations in (Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab)3, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 364 at pp. 367-368(A) and (Nar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh)4, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 457 at pp. 458-459(B). In the matter of enhancement there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposed substantial punishment. Interference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate.........." 18A. A perusal of the said passage would show that the enhancement of sentence should only be resorted to by the Appellate Court when the sentence imposed is manifestly inadequate. We are in respectful agreement with the said observations of the Apex Court. 18B. We would like to add that the Appellate Court should also enhance the sentence if it is below the mandatory minimum imposed by the statute. 19.In the instant case, we are satisfied that the sentence awarded to the respondent Baburao, Narayan and Sailu is manifestly inadequate and that awarded to respondent Narshya is not only manifestly inadequate but also below the minimum prescribed by law. 20.We begin with Narshya's sentence. We find that though the trial Judge has convicted him under section 395 read with 397 I.P.C. but, he has only awarded him a sentence of two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer 3 months R.I. We express our anguish, shock and indignation over the fact that the trial Judge is oblivious to the fact that the minimum sentence under section 397 I.P.C. is seven years. That minimum sentence atleast has to be imposed on respondent Narshya. Consequently, the sentence of Narshya has to be enhanced from two years R.I. to 7 years R.I. and the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- in default, three months R.I. imposed by the trial Court has to be maintained. That minimum sentence atleast has to be imposed on respondent Narshya. Consequently, the sentence of Narshya has to be enhanced from two years R.I. to 7 years R.I. and the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- in default, three months R.I. imposed by the trial Court has to be maintained. The sentence of respondents Baburao, Narayan and Sailu has also to be enhanced. The trial Judge has sentenced each one of them to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo one months R.I. A jail sentence of six months R.I. for an offence under section 395 I.P.C., in a case in which three persons received substantial injuries, is both shockingly and manifestly inadequate. Hence, the sentence of these respondents has to be enhanced inspite of the fact that two of the eye-witnesses namely Bala Gaund and Shankar P.Ws. 5, and 10, did not state that the said respondents, who were armed with sticks, caused injuries. This circumstance would, in our Judgment be a extenuating circumstance while deciding the quantum of sentence to be imposed on the respondents. Ordinarily, a sentence of seven years R.I. is awarded for an offence under section 395 I.P.C. but, we are adopting a softer approach because: two of the eye witnesses do not state that they used their sticks; the incident took place nearly 15 years ago; and Mr. A.S. Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court page 196 (Shivappa v. State of Mysore and others)5, wherein in para 7, Hidayatullah, Chief Justice, even after observing that the offence was serious, (it was one under section 395 I.P.C.) chose to award a sentence of three years R.I. Bearing in mind the said decision and the over all circumstances, the ends of justice would be squarely satisfied if the sentence of these respondents is enhanced from six months R.I. to three years R.I. each and the fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer 1 month R.I. each imposed by the trial Court is maintained. 21.We now come to Criminal Revision Application No. 466 of 1983. In our view, the said Revision should stand disposed off in terms of our Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1983. 100/- in default to suffer 1 month R.I. each imposed by the trial Court is maintained. 21.We now come to Criminal Revision Application No. 466 of 1983. In our view, the said Revision should stand disposed off in terms of our Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1983. 22.In the result, these three connected matters are disposed off in the following manner :- A) Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983 preferred by the four appellants namely Narshya Bhaga Gaund, Baburao Narshya Gaund, Narayan Anjayya Gaund and Sailu Niranna Ghetari is dismissed. The convictions of Narshya Gaund for the offence under section 395 r/w 397 I.P.C. and those of Baburao Gaund, Narayan Gaund, and Sailu Ghetari for the offence under section 395 I.P.C. are maintained. Their sentences however, are enhanced in the manner stated in (B). B) Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1983 preferred, by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence of respondents is allowed. The sentence awarded to the respondent Narshya Bhaga Gaund for the offence under section 395 read with 397 I.P.C. is enhanced from 2 years R.I. to 7 years R.I. and the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- and three months R.I. in default imposed by the trial Court is also maintained. The sentence of Baburao Narshya Gaund, Narayan Anjayya Gaund, and Sailu Niranna Ghetari for the offence of 395 I.P.C. is enhanced from 6 months R.I. to three years R.I. each; and the sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- and 1 month R.I. in its default imposed by the trial Court is also maintained. C) Criminal Revision Application No. 466 of 1983 is disposed off in terms of our Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1983. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1983 and respondents in Criminal Appeal No, 614 of 1983 and Criminal Revision Application No, 466 of 1983, namely Narshya Bala Gaund, Baburao Narshya Gaund, Narayan Anjayya Gaund and Sailu Niranna Ghetari are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentence. In case they have not paid the fine, they would pay the same during the period of their imprisonment and if they fail to do so, they shall serve the period in default of payment of fine imposed by the trial Court. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentence. In case they have not paid the fine, they would pay the same during the period of their imprisonment and if they fail to do so, they shall serve the period in default of payment of fine imposed by the trial Court. Before parting with this Judgment, we would like to put on record, our appreciation for the learned Counsel for the parties who with a rare combination of tenacity and fairness, have argued these connected matters. Our appreciation for Ms V.K. Tahilramani is all the more because although, she was not originally assigned this brief, as usual, she came to our rescue and prevented the Board from collapsing. In case an application for a certified copy of this Judgment is made, the same shall be issued on an expedited basis.