The nature of injury is immaterial, and what is relevant is the nature of the weapon used to inflict the injury. Imposing appropriate sentences to protect society and deter criminals is crucial.

JUDGMENT :

Subodh Abhyankar J.

1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of other connected appeals as all these three appeals have arisen out of the judgment dated 30.10.2017 passed in S.T. No. 880/2012 by VIIth A.S.J., Indore whereby finding the appellants guilty, the learned Judge of the trial Court has convicted them as under:-

2. At the outset, Counsels appearing for the appellants have submitted that they are not pressing the appeals on merits, however, looking to the period of incarceration of the appellants, seeking reduction in their jail sentence to the period already undergone by them. Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, Counsel for the appellant - Siyaram has also submitted that no overt act is attributed to him by the injured witnesses hence he cannot be convicted with the aide of s. 34 of IPC.

3. In Criminal Appeal No. 5812/2017 (Kailash vs. State) as nobody has appeared, hence this Court has requested to Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, Counsel to address this Court on behalf of the appellant - Kailash.

4. Before adverting to the facts of the case, so far as the relief of the sentence already undergone by the appellants is concerned, on the issue of reduction of sentence, this court can fruitfully rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of State of M.P. v. Mohan, (2013) 14 SCC 116, relevant paras of the same read as under:-

"10. PW 14, the doctor, has explained the nature of injuries and use of the firearm for causing the injuries. The firearm, it is proved, was used repeatedly against the complainants, causing bodily hurt. This Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 307 IPC in Sadha Singh v. State of Punjab [(1985) 3 SCC 225 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 359], wherein the trial court awarded the substantive sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine, which were reduced by the High Court to a period of three months of imprisonment already undergone by the accused, but by enhancing the fine. This Court held that the reduction of the sentence was not justified. In that case also, the doctor opined that the injuries were caused by firearm, just like the present case. This Court, reversing the judgment of the High Court and upholding that of the trial court, held as follows: (SCC p. 229, para 8)

"8. If the learned Judge had in mind the provisions of Section 360 CrPC so as to extend the benefit of treatment reserved for first offenders, these appellants hardly deserve the same. Admittedly, both the appellants were above the age of 21 years on the date of committing the offence. They have wielded dangerous weapons like firearms. Four shots were fired. The only fortunate part of the occurrence is that the victim escaped death. The offence committed by the appellants is proved to be one under Section 307 IPC punishable with imprisonment for life. We were told that the appellants had hardly suffered imprisonment for three months. If the offence is under Section 307 IPC i.e. attempt to commit murder which is punishable with imprisonment for life and the sentence to be awarded is imprisonment for three months, it is better not to award substantive sentence as it makes mockery of justice."

11. This Court in State of M.P. v. Sangram [(2009) 17 SCC 370 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1034 : AIR 2006 SC 48] took strong exception in the manner in which the High Court, while disposing of the criminal appeal, reduced the sentence without application of mind. That was also a case where the accused was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The trial court imposed the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment, which was reduced by the Hi