Supreme Court Enhances Sentence for Attempt to Murder in Suryakant Baburao vs State of Maharashtra (30 July 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 30 July 2019
Citation: Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad vs State of Maharashtra (2019) INSC 714
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a court reduce the sentence for a serious crime like attempt to murder, especially when grievous injuries are inflicted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, enhancing the sentence of an accused who fired a pistol at two individuals, causing severe injuries. This case highlights the importance of proportionate sentencing in criminal law. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna, with Justice R. Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On January 24, 2012, at approximately 5:30 PM, Chandrakant (PW-6) was walking towards his land when he was confronted by Devraj (A1), Ashish (A2), and Balaji (A3) near a mobile shop. Devraj (A1) questioned Chandrakant (PW-6) about obstructing Balaji (A3) from spreading rubble in his field. An argument ensued, during which Devraj (A1) pulled out a pistol and shot Chandrakant (PW-6) in the chest. Suryakant (PW-7) and Shivaji (PW-5), among others, rushed to the scene. When Suryakant (PW-7) tried to intervene, Devraj (A1) shot him in the left knee. Shivaji (PW-5) was also attacked by the accused with fists, kicks, and a knife, resulting in grievous injuries. Following the incident, Chandrakant (PW-6) and Suryakant (PW-7) were hospitalized. Suryakant (PW-7) filed a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The charge under the Arms Act was later altered to Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court examined thirteen witnesses and various documents. Based on the evidence of injured witnesses Chandrakant (PW-6), Suryakant (PW-7), and eyewitness Ram Phad (PW-4), along with medical evidence, the trial court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing each to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000. They were also convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, with a sentence of six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 each. The trial court ordered Rs. 20,000 each to be paid to Chandrakant (PW-6) and Suryakant (PW-7) as compensation from the fine amount, as per Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). In an appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction of accused No. 1 (Devraj) under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC but reduced his sentence to five years. The High Court also convicted accused No. 1 under Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) read with Section 34 of the IPC, reducing his sentence to the period already served and imposing a fine of Rs. 15,000. The High Court acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 from the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, instead convicting them under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC, with a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 25,000 each. The High Court maintained the conviction and sentence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC for all accused. The High Court ordered Rs. 60,000 to be paid to Chandrakant (PW-6) and Rs. 30,000 to Suryakant (PW-7) as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the reduction of sentence, Suryakant (PW-7) appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of attempt to murder. It states that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if by that act he 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.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section pertains to voluntarily causing hurt. It states that whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
• Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states that whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act: These sections pertain to the possession and use of firearms without a license.
• Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section empowers the court to order compensation to victims of crime from the fine imposed on the accused.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Suryakant, PW-7):

• The appellant argued that Devraj (A1) shot Chandrakant (PW-6) in the chest, with the bullet piercing through his body, and that the medical evidence indicated that the injuries were capable of causing death.
• The appellant contended that the High Court showed undue sympathy towards the accused by reducing their sentences, particularly given the severity of the crime and the injuries inflicted.
• The appellant emphasized that the High Court should have considered the gravity of the offense and the potential for a fatal outcome when reducing the sentence.

Respondents’ Arguments (Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3):

• The respondents argued that the High Court had exercised its discretion appropriately by reducing the sentences, considering the facts, circumstances, and the age of accused Nos. 2 and 3.
• They contended that the High Court had increased the fine amount to be paid as compensation to the victims under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C., which adequately addressed the harm caused.
• The respondents submitted that the High Court’s judgment, which reduced the sentences, did not warrant any interference by the Supreme Court.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellant’s emphasis on the severity of the injuries and the potential for death, arguing that the High Court’s reduction of sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offense.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused, particularly accused No. 1, given the gravity of the offense and the nature of the injuries caused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Sentencing and Proportionality:

• State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh (2015) 3 SCC 441: The Supreme Court of India emphasized that undue sympathy in sentencing undermines public confidence in the justice system. It stated that courts must impose sentences commensurate with the gravity of the offense, considering the rights of both the victim and society.
• Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 588: The Supreme Court of India held that sentencing requires balancing various considerations, maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment. It cautioned against both excessively severe and manifestly inadequate sentences.
• Sevaka Perumal and another v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 3 SCC 471: The Supreme Court of India noted that undue sympathy in sentencing undermines public confidence in the justice system and that courts must impose proper sentences considering the nature of the offense and the manner of its execution.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered this provision to determine the elements of the offense of attempt to murder, particularly the intention to cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered this provision to determine the liability of multiple individuals acting in furtherance of a common intention.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered this provision to determine the elements of the offense of voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered this provision to determine the elements of the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons.
• Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): The court considered this provision regarding the power of the court to order compensation to victims.

Authority Table

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions:

How Each Authority Was Viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court relied on State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh [(2015) 3 SCC 441]* to emphasize that undue sympathy in sentencing undermines public confidence in the justice system.
• The Supreme Court relied on Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC 588]* to highlight the need for a reasonable proportion between the crime and the punishment.
• The Supreme Court relied on Sevaka Perumal and another v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1991) 3 SCC 471]* to emphasize that inadequate sentences can harm the justice system and undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law.

The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, held that the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence of accused No. 1-Devraj. The Court noted that Devraj (A1) had shot Chandrakant (PW-6) in the chest, and the medical evidence indicated that the injuries were capable of causing death. The Court emphasized that the sentence should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. The Court stated, “Considering the nature of injuries caused to PW-6-Chandrakant i.e. gun shot wounds in the chest and the opinion of Doctor that the injuries caused to PW-6 are capable of causing death, in our view, the High Court was not right in reducing the sentence of first accused-Devraj.” The Court also observed that “The courts must not only keep in view the right of the accused, but must also keep in view the interest of the victim and society at large.” The Court further stated, “While it is true that the sentence imposed upon the accused should not be harsh, inadequacy of sentence may lead to sufferance of the victim and the community at large.” Consequently, the Supreme Court enhanced the sentence of accused No. 1 to six years and six months of rigorous imprisonment. However, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision regarding accused Nos. 2 and 3, affirming their acquittal under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and their reduced sentences under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Gravity of the Offense: The Court emphasized that the offense of attempt to murder is a serious crime, and the punishment should reflect the gravity of the offense.
• Nature of Injuries: The Court considered the nature of the injuries inflicted on Chandrakant (PW-6), noting that the gunshot wound to the chest was capable of causing death.
• Use of Firearm: The fact that a firearm was used in the commission of the offense weighed heavily on the Court’s decision.
• Public Interest: The Court also considered the interest of the victim and the society at large, stating that inadequate sentences may lead to a loss of confidence in the justice system.
• Proportionality of Sentence: The Court stressed the need for a reasonable proportion between the gravity of the offense and the punishment imposed.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court reveals the following ranking:

The ratio of fact to law percentage that influenced the court to decide is as follows:

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Proportional Sentencing: Courts must ensure that the sentence imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
• Severity of Attempt to Murder: Attempt to murder is a serious offense, and the punishment should reflect the potential for loss of life.
• Use of Firearms: The use of firearms in the commission of a crime is an aggravating factor that should be considered during sentencing.
• Public Confidence in Justice System: Inadequate sentences can undermine public confidence in the justice system, and courts must consider the interest of the victim and the society at large.
• Balancing Rights: Courts must balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victim and the interest of society.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed accused No. 1-Devraj to surrender within four weeks from the date of the judgment to serve the remaining sentence. In case of failure to do so, he was to be taken into custody.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the sentence for an offense like attempt to murder must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime, the nature of injuries caused, and the weapon used. The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that undue sympathy in sentencing can undermine public confidence in the justice system. This judgment clarifies that courts must consider the rights of the victim and society at large while determining the sentence. This case does not change any previous positions of law but reinforces the already existing principle of proportionate sentencing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, enhancing the sentence of accused No. 1-Devraj for the offense of attempt to murder to six years and six months of rigorous imprisonment. The Court held that the High Court was not right in reducing the sentence, considering the gravity of the offense, the nature of injuries, and the use of a firearm. The Court affirmed the High Court’s decision regarding accused Nos. 2 and 3. This judgment underscores the importance of proportionate sentencing and the need for courts to consider the rights of both the victim and society while determining the appropriate punishment.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:

• Attempt to Murder
• Sentencing
• Proportionate Punishment
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Suryakant Baburao vs State of Maharashtra case?
A: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of the accused for the offense of attempt to murder, given the severity of the crime and the injuries caused.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court enhanced the sentence of accused No. 1-Devraj to six years and six months of rigorous imprisonment. It held that the High Court was not right in reducing the sentence, considering the gravity of the offense and the nature of injuries.

Q: What is Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
A: Section 307 of the IPC deals with the offense of attempt to murder. It states that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if by that act he caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished accordingly.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment emphasizes the importance of proportionate sentencing and the need for courts to consider the gravity of the offense, the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the interest of the victim and society while determining the appropriate punishment. It also underscores that undue sympathy in sentencing can undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Q: What does the Supreme Court mean by “proportionate sentencing”?
A: Proportionate sentencing means that the punishment imposed should be in reasonable proportion to the seriousness of the crime. The sentence should reflect the gravity of the offense and the harm caused to the victim and society.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?
A: This judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts that sentences must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. It also highlights the importance of considering the rights of victims and society when determining sentences for serious crimes like attempt to murder.