DASRATH GOND Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been admitted only on the question of sentence. The relevant facts can be gathered from the following extract from the judgment of the High Court:

(2.) The accused were all committed to take their trial before the Sessions Judge on charges under Ss. 302./149/120B/201, I. P. C. Seven of the accused were acquitted. The remaining 12 were convicted under Ss. 325/149 and 120, I.P.C. and acquitted in respect of S. 302/149 and S. 201 I. P. C. In respect of the convictions under S. 325/149, each was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and in respect of the convictions under S. 120 I. P. C. no separate sentences were awarded. These twelve went up in appeal to the High Court . At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal a rule was issued by the High Court to show cause why the sentence against each should not be enhanced. Both the appeal and the motion for enhancement were finally argued together. The learned Judges of the High Court after discussing the merits of the case and considering the evidence and the probabilities confirmed the convictions in respect of eleven persons and enhanced their sentences from three years R. I. to seven years' R. I. for each. One other person who was also an appellant was given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. The High Court has also noted that it was reported that one out of the eleven was dead but that they were not sure about it. However that may be, only eight out of these eleven persons appear to have applied to this Court for special leave and they are the petitioners before us.

(3.) The judgment of the High Court shows that in enhancing the sentences the learned Judges were mainly influenced by their view of the facts that the offence committed by the appellants before them in fact constituted murder under S. 302 I. P. C. and not merely grievous hurt under S. 325, I.P.C. Whether this view is correct or not is not material since there has been no appeal by the Government against the acquittal and the High Court maintained the convictions only under S. 325/149, I. P. C. we agree entirely with the learned Judges of the High Court that, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment awarded by the learned Sessions judge was inadequate. The post-mortem examination of the corpse of the deceased person showed that there were ten injuries all over the body as stated by the High Court in the following passage: