Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 611 (BOM)

Datta Laxman Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

2013-03-11

ABHAY M.THIPSAY

body2013
JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.10.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No.113 of 1996, convicting the appellant, who was the sole accused in the said case, for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 2. I have heard Smt. S. A. Dhamale, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Smt. V. S. Mhaispurkar, the learned APP for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, she was not chal1enging the judgment of conviction delivered by the trial court on merits, and that, she would not be disputing the correctness of the findings recorded by the trial court, to the effect that, the appel1ant was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. She, however, submitted that there are several features of the case, which deserve an absolutely lenient approach to be taken as regards the sentence. She, therefore, submitted that she would be pressing the appeal only for reduction of the substantive sentence imposed upon the appel1ant. 4. In view of these submissions, I have not meticulously gone through the evidence recorded during the trial. I have, however, carefully gone through the statement of the injured victim - Datta Bhandare (PW5), and the medical evidence with respect to the injuries sustained by him, as was adduced during the trial. I do not doubt the correctness of the finding recorded by the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as a matter of fact, the dispute between the appellant and the victim Datta Bhandare, has already been amicably settled by them. She submitted that the victim Datta Bhandare is present in the court and is filing an affidavit to the effect that the matter has been settled between him and the appellant, and that he had no objection if the punishment given to the appellant is set aside. The affidavit of the said victim - Datta Bhandare - is tendered by her and the same is duly taken on record (marked "X" for identification). 6. The affidavit of the said victim - Datta Bhandare - is tendered by her and the same is duly taken on record (marked "X" for identification). 6. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that at the time of the incident, the appellant was hardly of 20 years of age, and that, even at that time the appellant and the victim were good friends. She submitted that the offence came to be committed on the spur of the moment, and that, the appellant had no past criminal record. She also submitted that after the said incident, the appellant has not committed any offence. The learned counsel also submitted that after the incident, which took place seventeen years back, the appellant got married and is now leading a good life with his wife and two children. She submitted that considering all these aspects, a lenient view of the matter be taken, and the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone, which is approximately of about 11/2 month. 7. I have carefully considered the matter. 8. I have heard the victim Datta Bhandare, who is present in the court. I have also heard the appellant himself, who is also present in the court. 9. Indeed, it appears that the appellant was in custody for about 11/2 month, before he was released on bail, after the admission of the present appeal. 10. Upon perusal of the affidavit filed by the victim (marked "X" for identification), and upon hearing the victim, I am satisfied that the victim does indeed feels that the appellant need not be punished at this distance of time. I am satisfied that the appellant and the victim, who are the residents of the same locality, are good friends of each other and the victim indeed desired that the appellant need not be made to undergo any harsh sentence. 11. It is also an extremely relevant aspect of the matter that the incident has taken place about seventeen years back. To require the appellant to undergo the sentence imposed upon him at that time, would be rather harsh, particularly because, the personal position of the appellant has been substantially altered during this period. It is not in dispute that the appellant has, after the conviction, married and is residing with his family consisting of his wife and two daughters. To require the appellant to undergo the sentence imposed upon him at that time, would be rather harsh, particularly because, the personal position of the appellant has been substantially altered during this period. It is not in dispute that the appellant has, after the conviction, married and is residing with his family consisting of his wife and two daughters. It is also clear that during these seventeen years, the appellant is not alleged to have committed any offence. 12. In my opinion. it would be in the interest of justice, while maintaining the conviction, to reduce the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant to the period already undergone, and enhance the amount of fine suitably, and further to direct a substantial part thereof to be paid to the victim as compensation for the pain and sufferings undergone by him, on account of the offence committed by the appellant. 13. The learned APP also does not object to reduction of the substantive sentence in the nature aforesaid. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 15. The order of conviction of the appellant with respect to the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone. 16. The amount of fine imposed on the appellant is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. If fine is recovered, an amount of Rs.20,000/- there from, shall be paid to the victim Datta Bhandare. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo a sentence of Simple Imprisonment for six months. 17. The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine with the trial court within a period of two weeks from today. 18. The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Appeal partly allowed.