Compromise obtained after 28 years of brutal incident is no solitary basis to mold sentence, in absence of mitigating factors supporting case of accused:SC

feature-top

Read Judgment: Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, September 21,2021: The Supreme Court has ruled that a compromise if entered at the later stage of the incident or even after conviction can indeed be one of the factor in interfering the sentence awarded to commensurate with the nature of offence being committed to avoid bitterness in the families of the accused and the victim.

However, the compromise cannot be taken to be a solitary basis until the other aggravating and mitigating factors also support and are favourable to the accused for molding the sentence which always has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

A Division Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka refused to record their satisfaction in reference to the kind of compromise which has now been obtained and placed on record after 28 years of the incident.

The Bench said that they cannot be oblivious of the sufferings which the victim has suffered for such a long time and being crippled for life and the leg and arm of the victim had been amputated in the alleged incident dated December 13, 1993. Since then he has been fighting for life, pursuing his daily chores with a prosthetic arm and leg and has lost his vital organs of his body and became permanently disabled.

The observation came to be passed on an appeal filed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The background of the case was that when the injured victim (Subhash Yadavrao Patil) was returning to Malegaon from Tembhurni on bicycle, the appellant along with 11 others attacked him with a sickle and chopped off his right leg below the knee and right forearm below the elbow.

During trial, the Court found all the 12 accused persons guilty and convicted them for offence punishable u/s 326 r/w/s 149 of IPC and each of them was sentenced to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine in sum of Rs. 1000. However, on appeal, the Bombay High Court upheld conviction only against 5 of the 12 accused including the appellant. Hence, present appeal.

After considering the evidence, the Top Court opined that the offence punishable u/s 326 IPC is non-compoundable as per Section 320,CrPC.

The Court found that the case of the prosecution is that the appellant attacked the injured victim with a lethal weapon which had caused permanent nature of disability and the brutality is apparent on the face of record.

His right arm and leg were chopped off during the course of crime which occurred on December 13, 1993. It was only because of the strong will and immediate medical treatment extended to the victim that he could survive. It was even stated by the treating doctor that in the absence of immediate medical treatment, his death was certain, added the Court.

While stating that giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of the criminal delivery system, the Division Bench observed that there is no legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assess the Trial Court in meeting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges.

The High Court has recorded its sufficient reasons while convicting him u/s 326 IPC and not only the fact that it was a premeditated attempt of the appellant, he assaulted the victim with the sword and chopped of his right leg below the knee and right forearm below the elbow and the brutality is apparent on the face of record”, observed the Division Bench.

Therefore, while concluding that giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of the criminal delivery system, the Apex Court refused to give any benefit of the alleged compromise for interfering in the sentence awarded by the High Court.

Add a Comment