Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 1340
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
Jagdish Chidanand Kore - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2012, Criminal Appeal Nos. 400-401 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 6189-6190 of 2012)
Decided On : 12-02-2014
For the Appellant :Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. S.J. Amith, Ritika Gambir, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Nandini Gupta, Anitha Shenoy, Vishruti Vijay, Neha Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., Anitha Shenoy, Vishruti Vijay, Neha Singh, S.J. Amith, Ritika Gambir, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Nandini Gupta, Advocates.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code –Sections 452, 450, 307, 506 –Arms Act –Sections 3, 25(1-B), 7, 25(1-A), 5, 25(1)(a), 7, 25(1-AA), 27 – Order of Conviction –Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2012, was put on trial for offence under Section 452, 450, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B), Section 7 read with Section 25(1-A), Section 5 read with Section 25(1)(a), Section 7 read with Section 25(1-AA) and Section 27 of the Arms Act – The Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum by judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2007 held him guilty under Section 452, 450, 307 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B) and Section 7 read with Section 25(1-A) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine. –Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-convict preferred Criminal Appeal –No. 2828 of 2009 and the High Court by the impugned judgment had maintained his conviction but reduced the sentence. – He was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for one month, under Section 452 of the IPC, RI for a period of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for a period of one month, under Section 450 of the IPC, RI for a period of ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer RI for a period of six months, under Section 307 of the IPC, RI for a period of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for a period of one month, under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, RI for a period of eight years and fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for three months, under Section 7 read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, RI for a period of five years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer RI for a period of one month under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the sentence under Section 506 of the IPC awarded by the trial court was maintained – It is against this order, the appellant-convict has preferred appeal by the leave of this Court – Held, Extreme penalty provided under the law is awarded in a case of extreme nature. –Here, in the present case, the weapon of crime is an illegal firearm and the injured had suffered serious injuries. – But from that it cannot be said that the offence proved is of extreme nature inviting the maximum punishment. –In the facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the considered opinion that sentence of eight years under Section 307 of the IPC shall meet the ends of justice. –However, Court maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellant-convict under the other provisions of the IPC and the Arms Act, as stated above. –Court direct that the fine amount if deposited by the appellant-convict be paid to the injured. – Appeal partly allowed
ORDER :
Jagdish Chidanand Kore, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2012, was put on trial for offence under Section 452, 450, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B), Section 7 read with Section 25(1-A), Section 5 read with Section 25(1)(a), Section 7 read with Section 25(1-AA) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum by judgment and order dated 29.10.2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2007 held him guilty under Section 452, 450, 307 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B) and Section 7 read with Section 25(1-A) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-convict preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2828 of 2009 and the High Court by the impugned judgment had maintained his conviction but reduced the sentence. He was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for one month, under Section 452 of the IPC, RI for a period of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for a period of one month, under Section 450 of the IPC, RI for a period of ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer RI for a period of six months, under Section 307 of the IPC, RI for a period of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for a period of one month, under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, RI for a period of eight years and fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for three months, under Section 7 read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, RI for a period of five years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer RI for a period of one month under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the sentence under Section 506 of the IPC awarded by the trial court was maintained. It is against this order, the appellant-convict has preferred appeal by the leave of this Court.
2. By Order dated 15.11.2011, notice limited to the question of sentence was issued by this Court.
3. The State of Karnataka, alleging inadequacy of the sentence, has also preferred special leave petitions.
4. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 6189-6190 of 2012.
5. According to the prosecution, the appellant-convict is related to the injured-PW 4. It is alleged that on 19.10.2006, the appellant-convict went to the theater, took out the firearm from his trouser and shot at PW-4-Prabhakar Kore. PW-4 sustained injuries in various parts of his body. He suffered grievous injuries in the occurrence. The trial court on appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and sentenced the appellant-convict to undergo various terms of imprisonment and fine. Same has been affirmed by the High Court with some modification in the sentence.
6. Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-convict, submits that the appellant had already remained in custody for about eight years and in the facts and circumstances of the case the period of imprisonment already undergone by him shall meet the ends of justice.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka, opposing the aforesaid prayer for reduction of the sentence and supporting the appeals preferred by the State of Karnataka against the inadequacy of sentence, submits that the nature of injury caused and the suffering which the injured is still undergoing, the sentence is not fit to be reduced. She submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence deserves to be enhanced.
8. Question of sentence, as observed by this Court in a catena of cases, is always a difficult question. It is well settled that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence does more harm to the justice system and undermines the public confidence in the efficacy of law. Nonetheless, as observe
