Attempt to Murder and Sentencing: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Maharashtra Shooting Case

The case of Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. involves a dispute over the quantum of punishment awarded in an attempted murder case. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of the accused while maintaining their conviction under Section 307 IPC.

Background of the Case

The incident occurred on 24 January 2012, at around 5:30 PM when Chandrakant (PW-6) was on his way to his farmland. At a location known as Pangaon ‘T’ point, he encountered Devraj (A1), Ashish (A2), and Balaji (A3), who were standing near a mobile shop. Devraj questioned Chandrakant regarding his objection to spreading rubble on farmland, leading to an altercation. During this altercation, Devraj (A1) pulled out a pistol and fired at Chandrakant, hitting him in the chest.

Hearing the gunshot, Suryakant (PW-7) and Shivaji (PW-5) rushed to the spot. When Suryakant attempted to intervene, Devraj fired another shot, hitting him in the left knee. Shivaji (PW-5) was also assaulted, suffering injuries from blows and a knife attack.

The injured individuals were rushed to the hospital, and Suryakant (PW-7) lodged an FIR under Sections 307, 323, and 506 IPC, along with charges under the Arms Act. The case was investigated, and a charge sheet was filed against the accused.

Trial Court Proceedings

The prosecution presented thirteen witnesses, including the injured individuals and medical professionals. Based on the evidence, the Trial Court, in its judgment dated 23 December 2015, convicted all three accused as follows:

Devraj (A1): Convicted under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000.
Ashish (A2) and Balaji (A3): Convicted under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
All three accused were also convicted under Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment.

Out of the fine collected, Rs. 20,000 each was awarded to the injured victims, Chandrakant (PW-6) and Suryakant (PW-7), as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

High Court’s Decision

The accused appealed to the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, which modified the sentences as follows:

The conviction of Devraj (A1) under Section 307 IPC was upheld, but his sentence was reduced from seven years to five years.
The convictions of Ashish (A2) and Balaji (A3) under Section 307 IPC were modified. They were instead convicted under Section 326 IPC (causing grievous hurt) and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone.
The fine amount imposed on each accused was increased to Rs. 25,000.
The compensation to the injured victims was increased, with Rs. 60,000 awarded to Chandrakant (PW-6) and Rs. 30,000 to Suryakant (PW-7).

Petitioner’s Arguments

The complainant (PW-7) challenged the High Court’s order, arguing that:

The injuries sustained by PW-6 and PW-7 were life-threatening.
The trial court’s sentencing of seven years imprisonment was justified, and the High Court showed undue sympathy in reducing it.
The injury to Chandrakant’s chest was severe, and medical evidence indicated that it could have been fatal.
The High Court should have maintained the original sentence of the trial court.

Respondent’s Arguments

The accused, on the other hand, contended that:

The High Court appropriately reduced the sentence considering the age and family circumstances of the accused.
Accused No. 1 (Devraj) had already served a significant portion of his sentence.
The injuries to the victims were not fatal, and the trial court’s sentence was excessive.
Increasing the fine amount to provide compensation was a justified approach.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court considered the nature of the injuries and the severity of the attack. The key findings were:

The bullet injury sustained by Chandrakant (PW-6) was serious, piercing through his chest.
The doctor who treated PW-6 stated that the injuries were capable of causing death.
The attack was deliberate and premeditated, with the accused using a firearm.
The High Court, while increasing the fine, failed to adequately justify the reduction in sentence.

The Court noted:

“Sentencing must reflect the gravity of the offence. Undue leniency in cases of attempted murder undermines the justice system and fails to deter future crimes.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that:

The conviction of Devraj (A1) under Section 307 IPC was affirmed.
His sentence was increased from five years (as imposed by the High Court) to six years and six months rigorous imprisonment.
The convictions of Ashish (A2) and Balaji (A3) under Section 326 IPC were maintained, and their sentence of “time already served” was not disturbed.
The enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court was upheld.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces important principles:

Sentences must be proportionate to the severity of the offence.
Courts should not show excessive leniency in cases involving firearms.
Compensation for victims should be ensured, but it cannot replace appropriate sentencing.
Attempted murder should carry a deterrent effect through strict punishments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case emphasizes the importance of appropriate sentencing in attempted murder cases. By slightly enhancing the sentence of the main accused while maintaining victim compensation, the judgment balances the interests of justice and deterrence. This decision sets a precedent for future cases involving armed assaults and violent offences.

Petitioner Name: Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad.
Respondent Name: State of Maharashtra & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 30-07-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Suryakant Baburao @ vs State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-07-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category