In cases of premeditated murder, the appropriate sentence is the death penalty.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE - MURDER - SECTION 302, PENAL CODE - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UPHELD - SENTENCE OF TRANSPORTATION FOR LIFE ENHANCED TO DEATH SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:

The accused, Pandurang Tatya-saheb Shinde, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life and a fine of Rs. 500. The State of Bombay filed an application seeking enhancement of the sentence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused had committed a cold-blooded and premeditated murder. The court noted that the accused had a history of enmity with the deceased and that he had made an attempt on the deceased's life a week before the murder. The court also found that the accused had caused multiple injuries to the deceased, resulting in his death.
Issues: 1. Whether the conviction of the accused for murder was justified. 2. Whether the sentence of transportation for life was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness accounts, extra-judicial confessions, and circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The court held that the sentence of transportation for life was inadequate and that the appropriate sentence for the crime of murder was the death sentence.
Final Decision: The court enhanced the sentence of the accused from transportation for life to death by hanging.

Judgement Key Points

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 summarily dismissed no order could be passed to the prejudice of the accused without hearing him on the merits of his conviction. We have accordingly heard the Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused on the merits of his conviction and in our view the conviction of the accused is amply justified.

2. The case for the prosecution is as follows: The deceased Hambirrao Bhausaheb Shinde was a paternal cousin of the accused. Hambirrao had two brothers Rajaram and Shivaji. The accused had two brothers Babasaheb and Abasaheb. It appears that was long standing enmity between the family of Hambirrao and the family of the accused. Bhausaheb, father of Hambirrao, was murdered by his brother Akram. Akram was then murdered and for his murder Rajaram and Hambirrao were charge-sheeted but it appears that in the trial they were acquitted.

A complaint was filed by the accused against Hambirrao and his two brothers for an offence under Sections 323 and 324, I. P. C. with respect to a quarrel which took place about two or three years before the date on which the offence charged in this case was committed. That quarrel arose out of a dispute relating to a piece of land belonging to the accused. In that complaint Hambirrao and his two brothers were convicted by the trial Magistrate and sentenced to pay fine. Against the conviction and sentence passed, an appeal was preferred to the Court of Sessions at Sangli and the order of conviction was confirmed by the Court of session some time in July 1954.

It appears that Hambirrao had submitted an application on 25-12-1953, at the Police Station, Budagaon, in which he stated that he was apprehending danger from the accused and his two brothers and requested that enquiries be made and that he be given protection. Rajaram, the elder brother of Hambirrao had also submitted a similar application on 10-7-1954, stating that he was apprehending danger from the accused and his two brothers. That application was sent to the Police for enquiry and the statement made by Shivaji, brother of Hambirrao, was recorded.

For some time before 20-9-1954, the accused and his two brothers used to shadow Hambirrao and his two brothers. About 8 or 10 days before 20-9-1954. Hambirrao ran into the house of one Tarabai Maula Bubhale. He was chased into the house of Tarabai by Abasaheb, brother of the deceased. Hambirrao jumped over the hedge into the adjoining house and made good his escape. The accused came into the house following his brother, Abasaheb. Tarabai enquired of the accused as to why he and his brother .had come into her house.

It is the case for the prosecution that Abasaheb, Tarabai enquired of the accused as to why he and his brother had come into her house.

It is the case for the prosecution that Abasaheb, brother of the accused, stated to Ta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document