Judgment

DUA, J.:- In this appeal special leave was granted only on the limited question of sentence.

2. Modi Ram, appellant no. 1, was married to one Janibai. About a year and a half after the marriage Janibai is alleged to have been seduced away by one Chunni Lal. Chunnilal and Janibai claimed to have got married to each other according to Natra form of marriage. Modi Ram did not like Janibai living with Chunnilal. On May 16, 1969 at about 6 O clock in the morning when Chunnilal was going to Talai apparently to answer the call of nature about five or six persons caught hold of him and gave him a beating. Apart from causing him other injuries they also cut off his nose and his male organ. The matter was reported to the police station, Ratangarh at about 10 a.m. As a result of the police investigation seven persons were prosecuted but only two out of them were convicted under S. 326, I.P.C. They are the present appellants Modi Ram and Lala. Modi Ram was convicted for cutting the male organ of Chunnilal and Lala for cutting off his nose. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch trying the seven accused came to the conclusion that the five accused, other than Modi Ram and Lala, were not proved to be present at the place of the occurrence and acquitted them. Modi Ram and Lala were, however, found to have caused grievous injuries to Chunnilal. They were both sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. This is what the learned Additional Sessions Judge when dealing with the sentence said:

"As regards the question of sentence the antecedents and circumstance will have to be taken into consideration. Chunnilal had taken (after contracting Natra with Modi Ram s wife) her as his mistress and Modi Ram s wife Janibai was not divorced according to caste custom or through court which is a patent fact. Chunnilal is a grown up man of 32 years, Modiram is a young man of 21 or 22 and although he has given his age as 18 or 19 he is certainly not above 20 to 22. The alleged Natra is also secretly performed and Chunnilal has kept Janibai in his house. Hence this act of his was certainly provocative taking these circumstances into consideration the accused Modiram and Lala are sentenced under S. 326, I.P.C. to one year s R.I.

3. On appeal the High Court considered it proper to enhance the sentence. After upholding their conviction the High Court observed as follows:

"The other question to be considered is about the sentence. The trial court has awarded a lenient sentence because he thinks that there was sufficient provocation in taking away the wife. The normal sentence under section 326, I.P.C. in particular of nose cutting, should be a number of years. In some cases sentence has been given upto 9 or 10 years. I have yet to find a case of nose cutting in which the sentence awarded is less than five years. It is also pertinent to note that in such cases of nose cutting either infidelity is suspected or there is some provocation. Regarding the sentence, therefore, I think this is a fit case for enhancement of sentence.

Then, after considering medical evidence and observing that the nose had been cut from the root and the male organ had also been cut, though according to Chunnilal himself on account of treatment and grafting he was in a position to perform the normal duties of a husband, the High Court considered it proper to enhance the sentence to eight years rigorous imprisonment. They were both given the same sentence because S. 34, I.P.C. was held to be applicable.

4. The only question with which we are concerned, as observed at the very outset of the judgment, is the question of sentence. The conviction has to be held to be fully justified on the record. Now the question of sentence is always a difficult and complex question. The accused persons found guilty may be hardened or professional criminals having taken to the life of crime since long, or they may have taken to crime only recently or may have committed the crime under the in