Summary
The complainant’s sentencing appeal succeeded only against the accused who fired at the victims. A chest wound capable of causing death and the use of a pistol made the High Court’s reduction to five years inadequate. Accounting for enhanced compensation already paid, the Court imposed six years and six months’ rigorous imprisonment. It retained the other two accused persons’ acquittals on attempted murder, lesser convictions and reduced sentences, as well as the fine and compensation directions.
Issues
- Whether the reduced sentences adequately reflected the respective accused persons’ roles and injuries caused.
Held
- Sentencing discretion must maintain a reasonable proportion to the gravity of the offence, considering the weapon, injuries, victim and societal interests as well as the accused. Brief reasons should explain the chosen punishment. (¶ 12–16)
- The first accused deliberately fired a pistol into one victim’s chest and shot the intervening victim. Medical evidence established the potentially fatal chest injury; the reduction from seven to five years did not adequately reflect the gravity. (¶¶ 9–12, 16)
- Since the increased compensation had been paid and reportedly withdrawn, six years and six months’ rigorous imprisonment was fixed for the first accused rather than restoring the whole original seven-year term. (¶ 16)
- The other accused were not armed with deadly weapons. Their roles and individual circumstances justified retaining the High Court’s attempted-murder acquittals, lesser convictions and reduction to time served. (¶ 17–18)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Devraj’s section 307/34 sentence increased to six years and six months’ rigorous imprisonment; surrender within four weeks, failing which custody. Appeal against the other two accused dismissed. Fine and victim-compensation directions maintained.