STATE Vs. DHONDURAM SHANKER BHOSLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case in which the facts are rather gruesome. There is little dispute about the guilt of the accused because the husband who was facing trial virtually pleaded guilty on the murder charge of having assaulted his wife with an axe as a result of which she died on the spot. In the light of the settled legal position that it is unsafe to record a conviction on the basis of a plea of guilty in a murder trial, the learned Sessions Judge very correctly recorded the evidence, evaluated it and convicted the accused because the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt irrespective of the plea of guilty. This, in our considered view is, the correct procedure to be followed. The learned Trial Judge, however, for a variety of reasons that have been recorded, the main one is being that it was established that there was a quarrel between the spouses and that the accused flew into a rage as a result of which he turned violent and hit the wife with an axe, recorded the conviction under Section 304, part II, Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302, Indian penal Code. Apart from these considerations, the learned Judge has gone into the object and purpose of the law imposing punishment and has held that on the facts of the present case, the accused did qualify for mercy and furthermore that he deserves to be given a shorter sentence than normal for one very valid reason, namely, that he is the father of three young children who have already lost their mother and who would have been virtually orphaned if the accused were to be incarcerated for a long period of time. The accused was awarded a sentence of three years R. I. The State has appealed against the inadequacy of sentence and prima facie, since it did appear that the sentence was on the low side, this Court admitted the appeal and set it down for hearing on merits.

(2.) TODAY we have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate who represents the respondent-accused. We do agree with the general submissions canvassed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the adequacy of sentence is a very important factor which is required to be taken into account by all Courts and he referred to two situations in which inadequate sentences have been awarded by Courts on certain occasions which have even being characterized as a "flea-bite" sentences and he submitted that instead of advancing the cause of justice that such sentences almost make a mockery of the justice dispensation system and raise doubts in the public mind with regard to the firmness with which criminal offences are required to be dealt with. Also, he submitted that there is the usual danger of such leniency being treated as a wrong precedent and that therefore he submitted that having regard to the nature of the offence and the seriousness of the charge, that the sentence is required to be enhanced. On the other hand, the respondent's learned Advocate pointed out two aspects to us which are of considerable consequence. Firstly, she submitted that this may be a rare case hut that the accused did not make any dishonest attempts to put forward false pleas but that he honestly and in a straight forward manner accepted whatever he had done and that this is an aspect which the Court must hold heavily in his favour. We do need to observe here that it has unfortunately become the order of the day even in cases where the offence committed is as clear as day light, that all sorts of untenable pleas are unnecessarily put forward which not only waste judicial time but which are certainly contra-indicated. In this background, we need to observe that whereas in other parts of the world, where the propriety and honesty levels in relation to such situations are observed very seriously that the putting forward of false and untenable pleas is much less, and in this background, where a court comes across an honest admission, it is certainly a factor that weighs heavily in favour of the accused.

(3.) THE respondent's learned Advocate pointed out to us that the accused is a poor man and that he was in custody right from the date of his arrest. After the trial, he has served the sentence and has already been released. The learned Advocate pointed out to us that if this Court were to interfere with the order of the trial Court at this point of time, that it would mean that the accused would have to be re-arrested and once again confined to jail and she submitted that apart from the traumatic effect that it could have upon him, that it would be absolutely disastrous to his family. She has submitted therefore that in keeping with the well established principle that a Court is required to evaluate every criminal case on its special facts that this is not a case in which interference is called for particularly at this point of time and that the grounds which categorise the reasons for the particular sentence would not create any wrong precedent.