Page 1

1

                                                         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.

1. Leave granted in both the appeals.  

2. 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

Page 2

2

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.

3.  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

Page 3

3

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.   

4. PW6  Dr.  Rajeshkumar  examined  and  found  the  

following injuries on the person of Dnyaneshwar Patil :

(i) Bleeding from nose and left ear.

(ii) Lacerated wound on left mastoid, 5 cm x 2 cm.

(iii) Lacerated wound on medial aspect of pinna.

(iv) 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 :

(i) Lacerated would on left side of the back 5 cm x 3 cm.

(ii) Abrasion on left upper arm 7 cm x 5 cm.

(iii) Abrasion on right upper arm 7 cm x 4 cm.

(iv) 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.  

Page 4

4

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

Page 5

5

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

Page 6

6

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

Page 7

7

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

Page 8

8

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

Page 9

9

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

Page 10

10

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)