2013 (2) TMI 816 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentence under Sections 307, 324, and 380 of the IPC.
2. Evidence and proof of firing a gunshot.
3. Appropriateness of the sentence under Section 324 of the IPC.

Summary:

1. Conviction and Sentence under Sections 307, 324, and 380 of the IPC:
The appellant challenged the High Court's judgment which set aside his conviction u/s 307 and 380 IPC but maintained the conviction and sentence u/s 324 IPC. The Sessions Judge had initially convicted the appellant under Sections 307, 324, and 380 IPC, sentencing him to concurrent rigorous imprisonment terms of seven, one, and four years respectively. The High Court acquitted the appellant of charges u/s 307 and 380 IPC, but upheld the conviction u/s 324 IPC, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

2. Evidence and Proof of Firing a Gunshot:
The appellant's counsel argued that the firing of the gunshot was not proven beyond reasonable doubt as the 'Katta' (country-made pistol) was not seized. However, the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, indicated that the injury was caused by a firearm. The Court referred to the precedent in Anwarul Haq v. State of U.P., stating that the absence of the weapon does not necessarily discredit the prosecution's case if the evidence is otherwise convincing.

3. Appropriateness of the Sentence under Section 324 of the IPC:
The Court discussed the principles of sentencing, emphasizing that the punishment must be proportional to the gravity of the offence. It considered factors such as the nature of the injury, the weapon used, the appellant's age, and the absence of criminal antecedents. The Court cited various precedents, including Santa Singh v. The State of Punjab and Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, to highlight the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing. Ultimately, the Court found the three-year rigorous imprisonment excessive and reduced it to one year, also directing the appellant to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation to the victim u/s 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with a modification in the sentence, reducing the rigorous imprisonment to one year and imposing a compensation of Rs. 20,000 to be paid to the victim.