JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred for enhancement of sentence imposed by judgment and order dated 7.2.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha, in Sessions Case No. 123 of 2006, whereby the respondent-original accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of making payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment of three months. For offence punishable under Sections 326 of IPC, the accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment of three months. For offence punishable under Sections 325 of IPC also, the accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment of one month. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under: 2.1 As per the case of the prosecution, on 29.6.2006, complainant Shilpaben W/o. Rameshbhai Manilal Nayak, filed a complaint before Talod Police Station stating that on 29.6.2006 at about 8 hour in the morning, the complainant had gone to newly built house of her mother-in-law Madhuben as in the said house, some work of feeling of land was to be done. At about 1.00 in the afternoon, the husband of sister-in-law of the complainant, present respondent, raised a dispute with mother-in-law of the complainant as well as her sister-in-law saying that as to why food had not been prepared and why clothes had not been washed till now, to which, the sister-in-law of the complainant replied that she was unable to do the work. Upon hearing this, the accused got excited and came with ceiling fan and inflicted blows on the head of mother-in-law of the complainant, the sister-in-law Niruben and baby Kinjal. The complainant went out shouting for help and the accused ran away from the spot. The injured were taken to Talod Hospital, where Niruben succumbed to the injuries. Upon hearing this, the accused got excited and came with ceiling fan and inflicted blows on the head of mother-in-law of the complainant, the sister-in-law Niruben and baby Kinjal. The complainant went out shouting for help and the accused ran away from the spot. The injured were taken to Talod Hospital, where Niruben succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the accused committed offence under Sections 302, 307, 325, 324, 323 of IPC as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act for which a complaint came to be lodged against him. 2.2 On complaint being filed, investigation was carried out and the accused was arrested in connection with the said offence. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same committed to Sessions Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.3 During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses:- Sr. No. Name Exh. 1 Mukeshbhai Shankarbhai Patel 9 2 Somabhai Madhabhai Patel 13 3 Maganbhai Shankarbhai Patel 16 4 Shilpaben Rameshbhai Patel 22 5 Madhuben Manilal Nayak 24 6 Purvi Arvindbhai Nayak 25 7 Dr. Gautam Vrajlal Nayak 32 8 Dr. Sureshkumar Kantilal Zaveri 37 9 Natvarbhai Kanjibhai Barot 40 10 Niravsinh Pavansinh 42 2.4 The prosecution had also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:- Sr. No. Name Exhibit 1 Original complaint 23 2 Panchnama of the place of offence. 24 3 Inquest panchnama of dead body of Niruben. 17 4 Panchnama of physical condition of the accused. 21 5 Panchnama of physical condition of Kinjal. 18 6 Panchnama of physical condition of injured, Madhuben. 19 7 Panchnama of the muddamal used in the offence. 10 8 Panchnama of the clothes of the injured Kinjal. 11 9 Certificate of the injuries received by Niruben. 26 10 Injury Certificate of injured Madhuben. 27 11 Injury Certificate of injured Kinjal. 28 12 Certificate of Cause of Death of Niruben. 34 13 Postmortem report 33 14 Medical Certificate from Ahmedabd Hospital of Kinjal. 38 15 Medical Certificate from Ahmedabad Hospital of Madhuben. 39 16 Yadi written for dyeing Declaration. 43 17 Extract of Vardhi of Civil Hospital Ahmedabad. 44 18 Extract of Vardhi received upon death of Niruben. 45 19 Forwarding report of Muddamal. 34 13 Postmortem report 33 14 Medical Certificate from Ahmedabd Hospital of Kinjal. 38 15 Medical Certificate from Ahmedabad Hospital of Madhuben. 39 16 Yadi written for dyeing Declaration. 43 17 Extract of Vardhi of Civil Hospital Ahmedabad. 44 18 Extract of Vardhi received upon death of Niruben. 45 19 Forwarding report of Muddamal. 46 20 Receipt of Muddamal received by FSL. 47 21 Original report of FSL (along with five papers). 48 22 Original report of work of FSL 49 23 Photographs of place of offence. 50 24 Closing purshis given by the prosecution. 51 2.5 At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction, which has led to the filing of present appeal. 3. Learned APP, Mr. L.R. Pujari appearing for the appellant-State has taken us through the oral as well as documentary evidence and contended that the trial Court has committed an error in imposing lesser sentence upon the accused inspite of voluminous evidence against him and also contended that the trial Court ought not to have imposed such a lesser punishment. He submitted that the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution has also produced 24 documentary evidences on the record of the case. However, without appreciating those documentary as well as oral evidence available on the record of the case in their proper perspective, learned Judge has erred in imposing lesser punishment. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge ha failed to appreciate that the accused has inflicted blow of ceiling fan on the head of the deceased with an intention to kill her. He also submitted that accused has also inflicted blow on the head of the child aged five years and, therefore, no leniency should have been showed to him. He, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused, however, lesser sentence is imposed upon the accused. He further submitted that the learned Judge has also erred in not properly appreciating the gravity of the offence committed by the accused while imposing the sentence and thereby committed grave error by imposing lesser punishment. He also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have imposed maximum sentence on the present accused as provided under Section 304, Part-II of IPC. He also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have imposed maximum sentence on the present accused as provided under Section 304, Part-II of IPC. Hence, impugned judgment and order passed by learned Judge in imposing the lesser sentence deserves to be modified by this Hon'ble Court and the sentence imposed to the accused deserves to be enhanced to maximum sentence as provided under the aforesaid section. He also submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the seriousness of the offence committed by the accused while imposing the sentence. The learned Judge also failed to appreciate that there is no sufficient and reasonable cause for the learned Judge to impose lesser punishment. He also submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that there is no any mitigating circumstance to impose less than ten years punishment and it is very clear from the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record of the case that there is aggravating circumstances in which Hon'ble Judge ought to have imposed the maximum sentence as provided under the law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent-accused has contended that the incident has happened in the spur of the moment and there was no motive on the part of the accused to commit murder or he was not having any knowledge that his act would result into death of the deceased. He submitted that since there was no intention on the part of the accused or he was not knowing that his act will result into death of the deceased, the sentence may not be enhanced. He also submitted that the accused has settled in life and now they are living peacefully, therefore, also sentence imposed by the impugned order may not be enhanced. He, therefore, prayed that this appeal may be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned APP for the appellant and learned advocate for the respondent-accused. We have also perused the record and gone through the impugned judgment. In view of medical evidence of Dr. Gautam Nayak and Suresh Zaveri, PW-7 and 8, it is clear that the prosecution has successfully proved that the injuries were caused to mother-in-law, baby Kinjal and the deceased. From column No. 17 of the postmortem report, it is clear that the deceased was not attacked once and she had received many injuries. In view of medical evidence of Dr. Gautam Nayak and Suresh Zaveri, PW-7 and 8, it is clear that the prosecution has successfully proved that the injuries were caused to mother-in-law, baby Kinjal and the deceased. From column No. 17 of the postmortem report, it is clear that the deceased was not attacked once and she had received many injuries. It is clear that this is an unnatural death and the accused is guilty of the offence. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part-II of IPC, however, the sentence imposed by the trial Court seems to be on lower side and it is required to be enhanced. 5.1 Moreover, recently, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in the case of Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana and Others etc. etc. in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1049 to 1050 of 2015, decided on 18/08/2015, in para 1 and 2 as under: "1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:- "Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner. We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis added] 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat, it has been held that:- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be--as it should be--a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. " [Emphasis supplied] And again:- "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal"." 5.2 Thus, in our opinion, the ends of justice would meet if the sentence imposed upon the accused is enhanced and if the accused is ordered to undergo imprisonment for five years instead of three years. It can be said that the learned trial Judge has imposed lesser punishment upon the accused and this appeal preferred for enhancement of punishment is required to be allowed. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 7.2.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha, in Sessions Case No. 123 of 2006 is modified and the sentence imposed by the impugned judgment for offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II of IPC is enhanced from three years' simple imprisonment to five years' simple imprisonment. Remaining part of the impugned judgment shall remain unaltered. Remaining part of the impugned judgment shall remain unaltered. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused shall be given set off. The accused shall surrender before the jail authorities within a period of ten weeks from today to serve the remaining period of sentence. Bail bond, if any, of the accused stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings, if lying here, be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.