IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime and merely because of lapse of time, in all cases it would not justify minimal sentence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 304-I-Conviction for offence under-Sentence-Assault-Six accused with different weapons in their hands surrounded PW 1 and jointly assaulted him-S gave a farsa blow on backside of his head, A gave lathi blow on his head and when he raised a cry for help, respondent accused fired at him but bullet missed-When relations of PW 1 came for help, respondent accused fired two shots which hit deceased on his leg and abdomen and subsequently he died-Whether High Court was justified in restricting respondent s sentence to period already undergone, which was about 2 years with fine of Rs. 15,000/- -(No)-Custodial sentence of 6 years would serve ends of justice-Fine of Rs. 15,000/- will remain unaltered.
       Held : The crucial question which needs to be decided is the proper sentence and merely because of lapse of time, the accused is to be waived from undergoing it. It is to be noted that the sentences prescribed for offences relatable to Section 304 Part-I are imprisonment for life or up to a period of 10 years. It is true that no minimum sentence has been prescribed. The sentences can be compared with prescription of similar sentences and other provisions like Section 326 IPC and Section 307 IPC when hurt is caused. Section 304 Part-I is a species of homicidal death. It is statutorily described as culpable homicide though not amounting to murder as defined under the IPC. Taking note of the purpose for which a sentence is imposed, it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that long passage of time in all cases would justify minimal sentence. Long pendency of a matter by itself could not justify lesser sentence. (Para 10)
       The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society s cry for justice against the criminal". If for extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance. Taking into account the all relevant aspects of this case in the background of principles governing award of appropriate sentence, we feel that even on a liberal approach, custodial sentence of 6 years would serve the ends of justice. While fixing the sentence we have taken note of the fine imposed which remains unaltered. It is said to have been paid. There was stipulation for 2 years RI in case of default. The respondent, who is on bail, shall surrender to custody to serve balance of sentence. (Paras 19 and 20)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1646 of 1996 has questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, holding that respondent (Ghanshyam Singh) was guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC ). The sentence imposed was restricted to the period already undergone, which was about 2 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- which, if deposited, was directed to be paid as compensation to the widow of Sarnam Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) and in her absence to other dependents and heirs of the deceased. In default of payment of amount of fine, the default stipulation was further imprisonment of two years.

2. Six persons including accused Ghanshyam faced trial for allegedly having committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 148 IPC, Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. While the respondent-Ghanshyam Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302, and 307 read with Sections 148 and 149, other accused persons were convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They were also convicted under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Various sentences were imposed. All the six accused persons filed appeals before the High Court. As accused No. 6 Diwan Singh expired during the pendency of the appeal, it was held that the same stood abated so far as he is concerned.

3. Prosecution case in a nutshell in as follows:

On 8.4.1981 Devisingh (PW-1) with his sister Sushilabai (PW-3), his sister s husband and elder brother Maharaj Singh went to bus stand of village Barod to see off Sushilabai and her husband, who were going by bus. At that time, all the six accused reached there with different weapons in their hands. Accused Ghanshyam Singh had a gun; Sitaram had a farsa and Harnamsingh and Diwansingh had lathis. They all surrounded Devisingh (PW-1) and jointly assaulted him. Sitaram gave a farsa blow on the backside of his head. Amarsingh gave a lathi blow on his head which, however, fell on the hand. When he raised a cry for help, Ghanshyam Singh then fired at him but the bullet missed. Hearing the alarm, Hanumant Singh (PW-4), father of Devisingh, deceased Sarnam Singh who was his uncle, and Jaswant Singh (PW-5) came on the spot. Accused Ghanshyam Singh then fired at Jaswant Singh and he received injury on the arm. He fired two shots thereafter which hit Sarnam Singh on his leg and abdomen. Harbir Singh gave a farsa blow on leg of Hanumant Singh (PW 4). Udhamsingh (PW-12), Jagannath and Banjara were at that time at motor-stand and they tried to save the assault. Information was lodged at the police station. Injured persons were sent for medical treatment. Subsequently, Sarnam Singh breathed his last. On completion of investigation charge sheet was placed. Accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication due to strained relationship. They claimed to have been assaulted by deceased and his companions. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated supra. Accused persons challenged the conviction and sentence.

4. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the High Court came to hold that the eye witnesses have given cogent and consistent version that two shots were fired by Ghanshyam Singh causing serious injuries to Sarnam Singh. It was noted that there were two parts of the incident. In the first part it was noted that when Devisingh ran away from the bus stand to save himself and raised an alarm, accused-Ghanshyam Singh came on the spot with his gun and fired. In the second part, there was free fight between the parties. In this view the plea of self-defence by the accused was rejected. It was however held that the act of using fire-arm and firing two shots by Ghanshyam Singh would fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. As the act was done in the course of sudden and free fight

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 889

IMPORTANT POINTCourts should impose punishment befitting the crime and merely because of lapse of time, in all cases it would not justify minimal sentence.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime and merely because of lapse of time, in all cases it would not justify minimal sentence.