JUDGMENT : R.T. VACHHANI, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State invoking the provisions of Section 418 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 79/2015 and 37/2016 registered with Bharuch City B-Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and sentencing Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent-accused) for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 114 of the IPC to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment; for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 114 of the IPC to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment; and for the offence under Section 504 read with Section 114 of the IPC to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment, with all sentences to run concurrently. 2. The State has consciously confined the scope of the present appeal only to the issue of enhancement of sentence and has, therefore, refrained from making any submissions on the merits of the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court. In view of the limited scope of the present appeal, a detailed narration of the entire factual matrix is not warranted. However, for the purpose of appreciating the gravity of the offence and to effectively address the issue involved in the present appeal, the facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are required to be narrated. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 29.05.2015 at around 10:45 PM near Laxminagar, Accused Nos. 2 Minhajbhai Yakubbhai and 3 Rizwanaben stopped the Activa scooter of the complainant's nephew Shahebaz and abused him verbally. Shahebaz informed his mother Shabanaben, who confronted them. The accused abused and threatened her in response. Subsequently, the complainant (Sarfarazbhai Abdulbhai Patel), along with his mother, father, nephew Shahebaz, and Shabanaben, went to Bharuch City B-Division Police Station to lodge a complaint. Shahebaz informed his mother Shabanaben, who confronted them. The accused abused and threatened her in response. Subsequently, the complainant (Sarfarazbhai Abdulbhai Patel), along with his mother, father, nephew Shahebaz, and Shabanaben, went to Bharuch City B-Division Police Station to lodge a complaint. In the police station compound, Accused No. 1 Soktabhai alias Fracture Maiyuddinbhai Sheikh, Accused No. 2 Minhajbhai Yakubbhai and Accused No. 3 Rizwanaben came running from outside. Accused No. 2 caught hold of the complainant, while Accused No. 1 slapped Shahebaz and, with intent to cause death or grievous hurt, struck the complainant with a chopper (chappu) on the chest, forehead, elbow, and left hand finger, causing serious injuries. He also struck the complainant's father on the left elbow with the chopper, causing injury. Accused No. 3 abused them verbally. The accused aided and abetted each other in committing the offences. A complaint was lodged, leading to registration of the FIR and, after investigation, charge sheet filing. 4. Pursuant thereto, investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency and upon completion of investigation, charge sheets came to be filed against the accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, whereafter the cases were committed to the Sessions Court, Bharuch as Sessions Case Nos. 79/2015 and 37/2016. Upon conclusion of the trial and appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 504 read with 114 of the IPC and acquitted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act by giving benefit of doubt, and acquitted Accused No. 3 of all charges. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the sentence awarded, the State has preferred the present appeal under Section 418 of B.N.S.S., contending that considering the nature of the offence, the use of dangerous weapon with intent to cause death and grievous hurt in a public place near police station, the serious injuries caused, and the gravity involving attempt to murder and common intention and abetment, the punishment imposed by the learned Sessions Court is neither just nor proportionate and therefore deserves enhancement. 6. 6. Further, the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant–State, that the learned Sessions Court ought to have taken into consideration the provisions of Section 307 of the IPC which provides for life imprisonment or up to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine where hurt is caused. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has recorded findings regarding the assault with chopper causing serious injuries to the complainant and his father, the verbal abuses, threats, and aiding and abettment. However, from the impugned judgment, it transpires that the court, while considering mitigating factors such as no prior convictions, family responsibilities, social status, impact on accused's family, need for reformative approach alongside punitive, and rehabilitation in society, exercised discretion in imposing the sentence of 5 years RI under Section 307 r/w 114 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence in entirety on record and by granting due opportunity of hearing to the concerned, exercised discretion in imposing the sentence. 7. The issue therefore arises for consideration before this Court is whether the sentence so imposed can be said to be grossly inadequate or disproportionate so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 418 of B.N.S.S. 8. At this juncture, it is required to be placed on record that since the present appeal, as fairly submitted by the learned APP for the State, is confined only to the issue of enhancement of sentence, the other aspects of the matter are not required to be dealt with. However, in order to address the issue as to whether the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate, commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime was committed, it is necessary to consider the crux of the conclusions recorded by the learned Sessions Judge along with provisions contenting punishment. 9. 9. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the statutory provisions under which the respondent–accused have been convicted, in order to examine whether the sentence imposed is commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offences: Section 307: Attempt to murder:- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of Soman vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 11 SCC 382 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 and has made observations in Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 as under :- “10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary. However, the Courts have framed certain guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts will have to take into account certain principles while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness. 11. This Court in the case of Soman Vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 11 SCC 382 observed thus : “27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales – most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence. 27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint 27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales – most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence. 27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint 27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it. 27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor.” 12. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 wherein it is observed thus: “84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” 11. In Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1955 (2) SCR 583 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the 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 the accused person except for very strong reasons, which must be disclosed on the face of judgment. It was further held that in a matter of enhancement, there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment wherein it has been held that in matters relating to enhancement of sentence, interference is not warranted where the sentence imposed is just and proper. 12. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. It further transpires as observed that the Court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing process. The Courts must see that the public does not lose confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be either grossly inadequate or disproportionate so as to warrant interference in an appeal for enhancement under Section 418 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The learned Sessions Judge has exercised discretion judiciously and within the statutory framework after duly considering the mitigating factors and the need for a balanced approach between punishment and reformation. No compelling or exceptional circumstances are made out by the State to justify enhancement of sentence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no sufficient ground is made out for admission of the appeal or interference at this stage. 14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Sessions Court forthwith.