STATE OF M.P v. MOHAN & Ors.

Trial court sentencing the accused to 3 years RI u/s 307 /PC for causing gun shot injuries to victims - High Court reducing the sentence to period already undergone - Held: In spite of various judicial pronouncements of Supreme Court, High Courts are reducing the sentence without application of In a case where accused persons have found been guilty u/s 307 /PC, the sentence already undergone, of about 20 to 50 days or 211 days, would not be an adequate sentence and not commensurate with the If High Court considers it fit to reduce the guilt established - F mind and stating any reasons - G sentence, it must state reasons, for the reduction - Administration of justice - Judgments/Orders. The respondents-accused, who were prosecuted for causing gun-shot injuries to complainants, were H 802 STATE OF M.P. v. MOHAN 803 convicted by the trial court u/s 307 IPC and were A sentenced to 3 years RI each. On appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was 50 days, 211 days, 39 days, and 23 days respectively, in respect of the four respondents, holding that injury was not caused on the vital parts of the body. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A gun shot, as in the instant case, may miss the vital part of the body and may result in a lacerated wound, that itself is sufficient to attract s.307. C The High Court, while reducing the sentence, has not properly appreciated the scope of s.307, IPC under which the respondents were found guilty. In order to attract s.307, causing of hurt is sufficient and the injury need not be on the vital parts of the body. If anybody does any act D with intention or knowledge that by his act he might cause death and hurt is caused, that is sufficient to attract life imprisonment. Section 307 IPC uses the word 'hurt' which has been explained in s.319, IPC and not "grievous hurt" within the meaning of s.320, IPC. Therefore, in order E to attract s.307, the injury need not be on the vital part of the body. High Court is, therefore, in error in reducing the sentence, holding that the injury was not on the vital part of the body. Period undergone by way of sentence also is not commensurate with the guilt established. There is F no good reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the High Court reducing the sentence is set aside and that of the trial court restored. [para 15, 16 and 18] [860-D-E, G-H; 811-A-C; 812-D]

1.2. In spite of various judicial pronouncements of G this Court, the High Courts are committing the same mistake and reducing the sentence without application of mind and stating no reasons. In a case where the accused persons have been found guilty u/s 307 IPC, the sentence already undergone of about 20 to 50 days or H 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A 211 days would not be an adequate sentence, nor would it be commensurate with the guilt established. If the High Court considers it fit to reduce the sentence, it must state reasons, for the reduction. [para 14] [810-B-D]