SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1955 Supreme(Bom) 183

P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.C.SHAH
State – Appellant
Versus
Pandurang Tatyasaheb Shinde – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the appropriate sentence for premeditated murder?

Key Points: - The State of Bombay filed an application to enhance the sentence of Pandurang Tatyasaheb Shinde, convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder and sentenced to transportation for life by the Sessions Judge (!) (!) . - The court upheld the conviction based on eyewitness testimonies (Kamalabai, Dhulappa, Babu, Tarabai, Khandu), extra-judicial confession, circumstantial evidence including blood-stained knife with human blood traces, and accused's absconding (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Long-standing family enmity existed, with prior complaints, convictions under Sections 323/324 IPC against deceased's family, and an attempt on deceased's life 8-10 days before murder (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The murder was cold-blooded, premeditated, committed in broad daylight on a bazar day with 16 deep stab injuries using a jambiya, without provocation (!) (!) . - Sessions Judge imposed transportation for life citing mutual vengeance and perceived danger to accused, but High Court rejected this as unsupported by evidence and lacking judicial discretion (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Normal sentence for murder is death; lesser sentence requires reasons, which were absent here (!) . - Court enhanced sentence to death by hanging, setting aside fine (!) .

What is the appropriate sentence for premeditated murder?


JUDGMENT

1. This is an application filed by the State of Bombay praying for an order enhancing the sentence passed upon the accused, Pandurang Tatya-saheb Shinde. The accused was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, South Satara, at Sangli for an offence under Section 302, Penal Code. The trial was held with the aid of four Assessors. Three of the Assessors were of the opinion that the accused was guilty of the offence charged. The fourth Assessor was not present at the time of the arguments and the learned Judge did not record his opinion.

Agreeing with the view of the Assessors who were present, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused of the offence charged. Having regard to certain circumstances mentioned in para 24 of the judgment the learned Judge sentenced the accused to transportation for life and further ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal to this Court which was summarily dismissed. The State has now applied for enhancement of the sentence passed upon the accused.

Even though the appeal filed by the accused has been s











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top