Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Mahipal Singh Satyanarayan Singh on 11 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ2485
Author: Vishnu Sahai
Bench: Vishnu Sahai
JUDGMENT Sahai, J.
1. Since both these appeals arise out of same set of facts, we propose disposing them of by a common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 316/1987 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the respondent under sections 392/397 IPC and section 37(1)(a) r/w 135 of Bombay Police Act recorded vide the Judgment and order dated 19-12-1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions case No. 258 of 1984. By that very Judgment, the trial Judge had convicted and sentenced the respondent in the manner stated hereinafter :-
(i) Under section 392 r/w 34 IPC to 3 months and 17 days R.I.; and
(ii) Under section 332 IPC r/w 34 IPC to R.I. for 3 months and 17 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. R.I. for 6 months.
The substantive sentences of the respondent were directed to run concurrently.
Criminal Appeal No. 317/1987 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent under sections 392 r/w 34 IPC and under section 332 r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case in brief runs as under :-
The informant Mohammed Nazim Mohammed Hanif PW 1 was a taxi driver, playing taxi bearing no. MRO 5040 belonging to one Ashok Wadhwa, on the terms that the latter was to be paid a daily sum of Rs. 60/- irrespective of the total earnings of the former.
On 19-11-1983, at about 7.30 p.m. Mohammed Nazim was plying his taxi at Ghatkopar and while his taxi was stationed at Garodia Nagar, four persons engaged the same and directed him to take it to Sion. On the taxi reaching Sion, they asked Mohammed Nazim to take it to Bandra. It is said that amongst the four persons, one was sitting on the front seat with the taxi driver and the remaining three on the rear seat. When the taxi reached Kherwadi signal on the Eastern Express Highway at Bandra(E) the person who was sitting in the front seat by the side of the taxi driver, took out a knife and after pointing out the same towards Mohammed Nazim asked him to hand over the valuables to him. It is said that the person who was sitting on the front seat, took away a cash amount of Rs. 140/- from the pocket of shirt of the taxi driver. One of the persons sitting on the rear side took out a kukri and pointed out the same at the taxi driver and threatened him to get down and another person sitting on the rear side pulled him out from the taxi and the third person removed the wrist watch and threatened him not to report the matter to the police. One of the four persons who sat on the driver's seat drove away the taxi towards Vakola side. This act of robbery is alleged to have been completed at about 8 p.m.
4. Immediately after being robbed, Mohammed Nazim P.W. 1 proceeded to Kherwadi police station and lodged his complaint pertaining to the robbery of his wrist watch, money and taxi on the point of knife and kukri. That complaint which is Exhibit 37 was lodged at 8.25 p.m. the same day at Kherwadi police station. The complaint was recorded by one PSI Sanghai P.W. 8.
Pursuant to the recording of complaint, P.W. 2 SI Avhad along with Mohammed Nazim, Police constable Gavde P.W. 3 and police constable Tawade PW 4 left the police station in a police van, for the place of offence i.e. Hussain Tekdi. On the way, they found that the taxi which had been robbed, was going ahead. A chase was given to the same and thereafter, it was brought to a halt. Four persons who came out from the taxi were apprehended; one of them being the respondent. It is said that while SI Avhad was trying to disarm one of the arrested persons, he was assaulted on his hand and neck by a knife. It is also alleged that from the respondent and others, some recoveries were made.
5. The investigation was done in the usual manner by PW 8 PSI Shenghai. He went to the place of the incident and drew a spot panchanama. PW 7 Subhash Choudhary was one of the panchas of the said panchanama. PSI Shenghai recorded statements of Gavde PW 3, Tawade PW 4 and some other witnesses. The taxi which was seized from the place of the incident was released on execution of a bond in favour of the owner Ashok Wadhwa. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the respondent.
6. It appears that prior to the commencement of the trial, the three co-accused persons who had participated in the incident along with the respondent absconded. It was in these circumstances, that the respondent was the sole accused who was put up for trial.
In the trial court, charges on four counts namely under sections 392 r/w 34 IPC, 392 r/w section 397 IPC, 332 r/w 34 IPC and 37(1)(a) r/w section 135 of the Bombay Police Act were framed against the respondent. To the aforesaid charges, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In the trial court, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution which also tendered some documentary evidence. In defence, no witness, was examined by the respondent.
The trial Judge convicted the respondent under sections 392 r/w 34 and 332 r/w 34 IPC but, acquitted him on the other two counts in respect of which the State of Maharashtra has filed an appeal against acquittal. As said earlier, the State of Maharashtra has also filed an appeal under section 377 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent on both the counts.
7. We have heard Mr. Nalawade learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra and Ms. Shubhada Khot learned counsel for the respondent in both these appeals. We have also perused the depositions of the material witnesses, relevant exhibits and the impugned judgment. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that Criminal appeal no. 316/1987 preferred by the State of Maharashtra against acquittal of the respondent deserves to be dismissed but, Criminal Appeal no. 317/1987 preferred by it for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent deserves to be allowed.
8. Mr. Nalawade learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State of Maharashtra vehemently contended that the learned Judge fell in error in acquitting the respondent under section 392 r/w 397 IPC. He urged that since the evidence in the instant case is that some of the accused who had participated in the incident along with the respondent used deadly weapons like knife and kukri, the respondent should have been convicted under section 392/397 r/w 34 IPC. We regret that we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention.
Section 397 IPC reads thus :
"If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."
Whether the liability under section 397 IPC is a individual or conjoint one was considered by a Division Bench of this court in a recent judgment reported in 1995 Cri LJ 4042, Wilson Chouriappa v. State to which one of us (namely Vishnu Sahai, J.) was a party. In the aforesaid decision, after analysing the provisions of section 397 IPC and also those of section 396 IPC, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the liability under section 397 IPC was an individual one and not a conjoint one. In that case, the Division Bench observed in paragraph 13 as thus :-
'A perusal of S. 397 IPC would show that the aforesaid section would only have application if the evidence is that during the course of commission of robbery or dacoity,' the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.' Unlike section 396 IPC, in which the principle of vicarious liability is explicit and which stipulates that if during the commission of dacoity, one or more of the persons committing dacoity commits murder then, all would be liable for identical punishment. Section 397 IPC contains the principle of individual liability. The words used in it are the offender. In other words, before Section 397 IPC, can have any application, prosecution has to establish as to who was that offender or accused person who during the course of commission of robbery or dacoity was armed with a deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt to any person or attempted to cause the death or grievous hurt to any person.
A comparison of the language used in section 396, and 397 IPC, justifies this inference. Had the Legislature intended that the expression 'the offender' used in section 397 should include all such persons participating in the offence of robbery or dacoity then it could have used language similar to that contained in section 396 IPC, and section 397 in place of its present text would instead have read as follows : If at the time of committing robbery or dacoity any person uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person every one of those persons participating in the commission of such robbery or dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than seven years.
The difference in the language used in sections 396 IPC and 397 IPC, in our opinion, leaves no room for doubt that the expression 'the offender' used in section 397 pertains to the actual offender or accused person who at the time of committing robbery or dacoity uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person and it does not include all such persons who participate in the commission of such robbery or dacoity.' It would also be pertinent to point out that the Apex court in the decision Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, has also taken the same view in paragraph five. The Apex Court observed thus :-
"A difficulty arose in several High Courts as to the meaning of the word 'uses' in section 397. The term 'offender' in that section, as rightly held by several High Courts, is confined to the offender who uses any deadly weapon. The use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract section 397 for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon."
It is in the backdrop of this legal position that we have to examine the question as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish that the respondent was one of the persons who used a deadly weapon during the commission of the robbery. In our view, the answer has to be in the negative. The informant in his examination-in-chief (para 5) of his statement in the trial court has frankly and candidly stated that since he was in a state of tension and was concerned with his life and safety, he could not visualise as to who was pointing out the knife and kukri, towards him. On the face of this, evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved that the respondent used a deadly weapon during the robbery and consequently, he cannot be convicted under section 397 IPC.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the above contention canvassed by Mr. Nalawade.
Accordingly, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the trial court acquitting the respondent under section 392/397 IPC.
9. This brings us to Criminal Appeal no. 317/1987 preferred by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent under sections 392/34 IPC and 332/34 IPC.
We are alive to the fact that even in an appeal for enhancement of sentence, it is open to the respondent (accused) to argue for acquittal. Ms. Khot learned counsel for the respondent could not point out any infirmity in the conviction of the respondent on the aforesaid two counts. We have also gone through the evidence on record and the impugned judgment. We feel squarely satisfied that the trial court has rightly convicted the respondent on those two counts.
The law pertaining to enhancement of sentence has been spelt out by the Apex Court in the decisions Bedraj v. State of U.P. and Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab. In the aforesaid decisions, the Apex Court has held that the question of sentence is primarily a matter of discretion of the trial court and unless that discretion has been capriciously exercised and the sentence awarded by the court is grossly and manifestly inadequate, the appellate court should not interfere.
In (supra); the Apex Court in paragraph 39 has observed that there must be strong reasons to entitle the appellate court to enhance the sentence and it is not enough that the appellate court feels that left to itself it would have awarded greater penalty.
In supra, the apex court in paragraph 15 observed thus :-
(15) "A question of sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment; see for example the observations in 'Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, (A) and - Nar Singh v. State of U.P., (B).
In a matter of enhancement there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. Interference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate."
10. In the instant case, bearing in mind the aforesaid decisions of the apex court, we are strongly of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the respondent under section 392 read with 34 IPC is manifestly inadequate. Section 392 IPC provides :
Section 392 IPC :
"Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years."
There is no manner of doubt that in the instant case, robbery was committed on a highway between sunset and sunrise for which the maximum sentence is fourteen years.
The dare devil manner in which the robbery has been committed by the respondent along with his associates in the heart of Bombay in our view, calls for enhanced sentence. To us, the sentence of three months and 17 days RI which has been imposed by the trial Judge under section 392 with 34 IPC is ridiculously and shockingly inadequate.
Our first reaction was to enhance the jail sentence of the respondent. However, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that the incident had taken place nearly eleven years and a half years ago, and since on the proved facts, no overt act in the incident has been attributed to the respondent, it would be far too hars to send him back to jail, more so, because he had already served out the period of 3 months and 17 days. The learned counsel for the respondent further urged that in a case of jail sentence, some fine is imposed, she would have no objection. Ordinarily, in a robbery of the present type, we would not have acceded to, her contention but, the fact is that 11 1/2 years have elapsed; on the own finding of the trial Judge, no overt act was attributed to the respondent, and there is nothing to indicate that the respondent has any criminal antecedents.
Bearing all this in mind coupled with the fact that he has already been in jail for three months and 17 days, we feel that the ends of justice would be amply satisfied if the sentence of the respondent under section 392/34 I.P.C. is enhanced from a period of 3 months and 17 days RI (the period already undergone by him) in a manner that an additional fine of Rs. 8000/- and one year in its default is imposed on the respondent.
11. We, however, feel that the sentence awarded to the respondent under section 332/34 IPC by the trial court cannot be stigmatised as manifestly inadequate warranting our interference in the exercise of the powers vested in us under section 377 Cr.P.C. We should not lose sight of the fact that in addition to a jail sentence of 3 months, and 17 days RI, a fine of Rs. 1000/- and 6 months in its default has been imposed on the respondent. Bearing in mind, that the maximum sentence under section 332 IPC is three years RI or fine or both, the sentence awarded by the trial court cannot be faulted as disproportionately inadequate.
12. In the result, Criminal Appeal no. 316/1987 preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the respondent for offences under sections 392/397 IPC and section 37(1)(a) r/w section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is dismissed. Acquittal of the respondent on the aforesaid two counts is confirmed.
Criminal appeal no. 317/1987 preferred by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence of the respondent is partly allowed. Although, sentence of the respondent under section 332/34 IPC is not enhanced, by us but that, under section 392/34 IPC, is enhanced and it is provided that in addition, to the period of imprisonment of 3 months and 17 days, which the respondent has already undergone, the respondent shall further pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- within a period of six months from today. In the event of the respondent not paying the fine in the stipulated period, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year S.I. The fine shall be paid in the trial court.
In case the fine of Rs. 8000/- is realised, the whole of it shall be paid as compensation to PW 1 Mohammed Nazim Mohammed Hanif. The trial court shall inform him about this compensation.
13. Order accordingly.