TUKARAM DNYANESHWAR PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Section 34 - Acts done by several persons in futherance of common intention
Section 302 - Punishment for murder
Section 324 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 442 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 13, 2015
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 442 of 2015
(@ SLP(Crl.) No.1506 of 2012)
Tukaram Dnyaneshwar Patil .. Appellant(s)
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondent(s)
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 443 of 2015
(@ SLP(Crl.) No.1505 of 2012)
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
Leave granted in both the appeals.
Both the appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 14.7.2011 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in
Criminal Appeal No.284 of 1998, whereby the High Court partly allowed the
said Criminal Appeal filed by respondents 2 to 4 herein/accused 1 to 3 and
thereby set aside their conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC and instead convicted them for offence under Section 304
Part-II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for
period already undergone and directed them to pay jointly and severally a
sum of Rs.1,05,000/- to PW1 Narayan Patil and family members of the
deceased as compensation in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
two years and the High Court maintained the conviction of the accused
persons under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC but reduced the sentence
to the period already undergone. Aggrieved by the same the State has
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2015 (@ SLP(Crl.) No.1505 of 2012.
The complainant Tukaram Dnyaneshwar Patil also preferred appeal in Criminal
Appeal No. 442 of 2015 (@ SLP(Crl.) No.1506 of 2012. Since both the
appeals have been preferred against the same judgment, they are heard
together and a common judgment is rendered.
Briefly the facts are stated as follows : The accused and the deceased
belonged to village Tuljapur Tah. Wardha. PW1 Narayan Patil is the brother
of deceased Dnyaneshwar Patil and he was also residing in the same village.
Tukaram is the son of the deceased. There was a dispute between the
deceased Dnyaneshwar Patil and accused A1-Dipak, A2-Prashant and A3-Pawan
over the boundary of the field and on 22.10.1997 accused no.1 assaulted
Dnyaneshwar Patil by means of sickle on the left ear and A2 and A3
assaulted him by means of sticks on his head and mouth. When PW1 Narayan
Patil intervened, accused nos.1 to 3 assaulted him with sticks on his arm
and head. PWs 2 to 4, PW8 and PW9 witnessed the occurrence. The injured
were taken to Sewagram Hospital.
PW6 Dr. Rajeshkumar examined and found the following injuries on the person
of Dnyaneshwar Patil :
Bleeding from nose and left ear.
Lacerated wound on left mastoid, 5 cm x 2 cm.
Lacerated wound on medial aspect of pinna.
Fracture of mandible.
Exh.64 injury report was issued by him.
PW6 Dr. Rajeshkumar found the following injuries on the person of PW1
Narayan Patil :
Lacerated would on left side of the back 5 cm x 3 cm.
Abrasion on left upper arm 7 cm x 5 cm.
Abrasion on right upper arm 7 cm x 4 cm.
Abrasion on right side of back 10 cm x 4 cm.
He opined that all the above injuries were simple in nature and caused by
blunt object.
5. The head constable of medical booth Sewagram Hospital recorded the
complaint given by PW1 Narayan Patil and sent the same to Sindi Police
Station, on which a case in Crime no.122 of 97 came to be registered under
Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and PW14 P.S.I. of Sindi Police
Station took up the case for investigation. In the meantime, both injured
were shifted to Nagpur Medical College Hospital. Dnyaneshwar Patil died on
25.10.1997 in the hospital and on receiving the intimation the case was
altered to one under Section 302 IPC. Inquest was conducted and witnesses
were examined.
6. PW12 Dr. Pradip Jadhao and Dr. V.R. Agrawal conducted post mortem on
the body of Dnyaneshwar Patil in the Nagpur Hospital on 26.10.1997 and they
found fracture base of skull and haematoma under the scalp over left
temporo parieto occipital region. The opinion was given that death was
caused due to injuries no.3 and 4 mentioned in the post mortem report.
After the investigation charge sheet came to be filed and the case was
committed to the court of Sessions. Charges under Section 302 read with
Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 were framed against the
accused and they were convicted and sentenced as stated supra. Challenging
the same accused nos.1 to 3 preferred appeal and the High Court altered the
conviction and sentence as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the
State as well as the complainant, have preferred the present appeals.
7. We heard learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and
the learned counsel for the respondents. The ocular witnesses PWs1 to 4,
PW8 and PW9 have testified about the attack made by respondents 2 to
4/accused nos.1 to 3 on Dnyaneshwar Patil at the time of occurrence.
Relying on their testimonies the courts below have rightly concluded that
the occurrence stands proved.
8. After the occurrence Dnyaneshwar Patil was taken to Sewagram Hospital
and PW6 Dr. Rajeshkumar examined him and found lacerated wounds on left
mastoid, medial aspect of pinna and noticed fracture of mandible. He was
shifted to Nagpur Medical College Hospital where he succumbed to injuries.
PW12 Dr. Pradip Jadhao along with another surgeon conducted autopsy on his
body and they found fracture of skull with haematoma present under the
scalp over left temporo parieto occipital region. They have expressed
opinion that the death has occurred due to the injuries found on left
mastoid region and over left pinna. PW12 Dr. Pradip Jadhao has also stated
in the chief-examination that the said injuries are sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. Accepting the medical evidence it
is clear that Dnyaneshwar Patil died of homicidal violence.
9. After analyzing the evidence the High Court held that there was
quarrel which led to the occurrence and the accused had also injuries and
they cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder and since they had
knowledge that their act is likely to cause death they are liable to be
convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC. We do not find
any error in the said conclusion of the High Court.
10. The disturbing feature is the sentence awarded by the High Court to
the respondents 2 to 4 for the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
As mentioned in the impugned judgment the respondents 2 to 4/accused nos.1
to 3 were arrested on 29.10.1997 and they were ordered to be released on
bail on 28.9.1998 and they have undergone only eleven months imprisonment.
The High Court while altering the conviction to Section 304 Part-II IPC,
altered the sentence to imprisonment for period already undergone and
directed to pay a sum of Rs.35000/- each to the complainant. Both the
State and complainant have challenged this alteration of sentence.
11. 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. With reference
to sentencing by courts, this Court in the decision in State of U.P. vs.
Shri Kishan (2005) 10 SCC 420 made these weighty observations :
"5. 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.............
7. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in
achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is
expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to
impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the
sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
8. ................. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or
taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect
of such offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and
against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by
string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
9. 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
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".
12. The facts and circumstances of the case which have been proved
by the prosecution in bringing home the guilt of the accused under Section
304 Part-II IPC undoubtedly show a despicable aggravated offence warranting
punishment proportionate to the crime. The sentence of eleven months
awarded by the High Court to the respondents for the said conviction is too
meagre and not adequate and in our view it would be travesty of justice.
It is true that each of the appellant was directed to pay compensation of
Rs.35000/- but no amount of compensation could relieve the family of victim
from the constant agony. We are of the considered view that imposition of
five years rigorous imprisonment on each of the respondent nos.2 to 4 for
the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC would meet the ends of
justice. We sustain the other conviction and sentence imposed on the said
respondents.
13. In the result both the criminal appeals are partly allowed and
the sentence of imprisonment for period already undergone for the
conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC is set aside and instead the
respondents 2 to 4/accused nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo five years
rigorous imprisonment each. All other conviction and sentence imposed on
them by the High Court are maintained. They are directed to surrender
before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha to serve out the remaining
sentence, failing which the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge is
requested to take them into custody and send them to jail to serve their
left over sentence.
............................J.
(V. Gopala Gowda)
............................J.
(C.Nagappan)
New Delhi;
March 13, 2015
ITEM NO.1C-For Judgment COURT NO.11 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Crl.A. No(s)......../2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 1506/2012
TUKARAM DNYANESHWAR PATIL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
Crl.A.No......../2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.1505/2012
Date : 13/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv.
Ms. Anagha S. Desai,Adv.
Mr. Akash Kakade, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan pronounced the judgment of the Bench
comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and His Lordship.
Leave granted.
The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed
Reportable Judgment.
(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)