Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 988 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 1516 of 2020)
SY. AZHAR SY. KALANDAR ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, being dissatisfied by the judgment dated
th
4 January, 2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur upholding the conviction of the
appellant for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal
Signature Not Verified
Code(hereinafter being referred to as “IPC”) and directed him to suffer
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2021.09.13
17:26:43 IST
Reason:
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/
1
with clause of sufferance in default of three months’ rigorous
imprisonment, has preferred this instant appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution is that Gajanan Kute complainant
th
lodged oral report Exhibit49 with Police Station Ansing on 11 May,
2016 contending that Chintaman Dange is his maternal uncle and
very active in social work. Previously the appellant had a quarrel
with Chintaman Dange (injured) because of unlawful construction
raised on Nal Saheb Baba Darga prior to 45 months to the incident.
th
On 11 May, 2016, when a Sandal procession at Ansing reached
Gandhi Chowk at about 7.30 p.m., unknown persons entered into the
procession and the present appellant along with his two other
associates with a sharpedged weapon stabbed on the stomach of
Chintaman Dange with intent to kill him. The complainant took the
injured to the hospital for treatment. On his report, P.S.O. Ansing
registered Crime No.80/2016 for an offence under Section 307 read
with Section 34 IPC against the accused appellant and other accused
persons vide Exhibit 50. After investigation, the chargesheet was
filed under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. After framing of
charge for the aforestated offence, the appellant faced the trial.
2
4. Relying on the testimony of PW 7 Chintaman Dange (injured
victim) and of the treating Doctor Arvind Kisanrao Adhe (PW11) which
was held to be unimpeachable and stellar, the learned trial Judge
held the appellant guilty and convicted him for offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ with default to suffer further three
rd
months’ rigorous imprisonment by a judgment dated 23 February,
2018.
rd
5. Unsatisfied by the judgment of the learned trial Judge dated 23
February 2018, the accused preferred appeal before the Nagpur
Bench of High Court of Bombay which, after hearing the parties came
th
to be dismissed by the judgment impugned dated 4 January, 2019
assailed in the instant appeal.
6. The record of the case elicits that the finding of both the Courts
are concurrent and without fault. The appellant has not been able to
mount an effective challenge founded upon a question of law and the
learned counsel has very fairly restricted his prayer qua reduction of
sentence only which reveals from the order passed by this Court on
th th
14 February, 2020. By a further order dated 30 July 2021, PW 7
3
Chintaman Dange(injured victim) was directed to be impleaded as
party respondent. Pursuant thereto, he was impleaded as party to
the present appeal.
7. A joint affidavit has been filed during the pendency of the
proceedings by the wife of the accused appellant and PW 7
Chintaman Dange(injured victim) and it has been stated that they are
residing in the same village and this unforeseen incident has
occurred on account of some misconception and are residing
peacefully even after the unfortunate incident has taken place. The
injured victim has come forward with the request that, as the families
have settled their disputes and almost half of the sentence has been
undergone by the appellant, it may be considered to be sufficient in
due compliance of the judgment impugned upholding conviction
under Section 307 IPC.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also the
learned counsel for Chintaman Dange(injured victimrespondent no.
2) and with their assistance perused the material available on record.
9. The joint affidavit placed on record makes it clear that the
parties, on the advice of their elders, entered into an amicable
4
settlement. The appellant has apologized for his fault and has taken
responsibility for his action and has maturely sought forgiveness
from the victim. In return, the victim has also voluntarily accepted
the apology while considering the age of the appellant at the time of
the incident and has forgiven him and has come forward without any
reservation to settle the dispute.
10. Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
injured victim has reiterated the same while making his submissions.
11. In almost the same circumstances which have been noticed by
us, a three Judge Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in
Murali
1
Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police , where the parties
decided to forgive their past and live amicably, this Court has come to
their rescue by interfering in the quantum of sentence which
obviously is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. but has
interfered since there is no minimum sentence prescribed. This Court
in Murali (supra), has taken note of the judgment of this Court in
2
which was further
Ram Pujan and Others Vs. State of U.P.
1
2021(1) SCC 726
2 1973(2) SCC 456
5
3
followed by this Court in Ishwar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and the
later decisions as referred to in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment has
taken note of the compromise between the parties to reduce the
sentence of the convicts even in serious noncompoundable offences.
The relevant paras are as follows:
“11. In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K (1999) 2
SCC 213; Bankat v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 343; Mohar
Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 11 SCC 226; Nanda
Gopalan v. State of Kerala (2015) 11 SCC 137; Shankar v. State of
Maharashtra (2019) 5 SCC 166, this Court has taken note of the
compromise between parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts
even in serious noncompoundable offences.
Given this position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising
12.
out of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it is
a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of
sentences awarded to the appellants. We say so because: , the
first
parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The
separate affidavit of the victim inspires confidence that the apology
has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and owing to
the maturity brought about by age. There is no question of the
settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement.
Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they
inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence.”
12. Taking into consideration the facts of the instant case and the
circumstances arising out of the subsequent events, in our opinion, it
is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum
of sentence awarded to the appellant. We have recorded our
3 2008(15) SCC 667
6
satisfaction, based on the reasons, that the parties to the dispute
have mutually settled their disputes and buried their past.
13. The joint affidavit inspires confidence that the apology as
tendered by the appellant has voluntarily been accepted given the
efflux of time and is not a result of any coercion or inducement.
Considering that they are residing in the same village and are
peacefully residing after the uncalled for incident has taken place, in
our view, this appears to be a fit case for reduction of sentence.
14. Considering the overall facts on record and other mitigating
factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed
including the nature of injury, period during which he remained
under medical treatment, mental agony which the victim suffered and
also the compromise entered into between the parties, while
upholding conviction under Section 307 IPC, we deem it appropriate
to reduce the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant to five
years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ and in
default of payment of fine shall suffer further three months’ rigorous
imprisonment. Ordered accordingly.
7
15. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
8