JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal by the informant is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the High Court while upholding the conviction of respondents 1 to 4 for offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years in respect of first offence.

3. The factual scenario has been described in detail in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2007 and Criminal Appeal No. ... of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 2007 of 2008) disposed of by us today. In the present appeal filed by the complainant, who had suffered injuries the legality of the order so far as it relates to reduction of sentence is concerned, has been questioned. It has been stated that the victims were mercilessly beaten and large number of injuries were caused to them. Without even indicating any basis, the sentence has been reduced. Injured Ram Swarup could not be examined because, as per the opinion of the doctor, he has lost his memory due to the injury caused to him. So far as the injuries on Ram Swarup are concerned they are as follows:

1. An incised wound 10x4x2 cm. deep over front of the neck just above the thyrod cartilage. The trachea was cut and exposed. Advised E.N.T. Surgeon's opinion.

2. An incised wound 16x2 cm X bone deep over right side of the scalp extending from right eyebrow to the parietal region up to the mid line. Advised Surgeon's opinion.

3. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm bone deep over left side of the scalp extending from the left eyebrow over the scalp. Advised Surgeon's opinion.

4. Incised wound 4x1x1 cm deep over the left side of the forehead 1 cm deep over the left side of the forehead 1 cm. of mild line.

5. Incised wound 4 x 1 x 1 cm. over the anterior aspect of left shoulder. 6. Crush injury 16 cm x 8 cm x bone deep over the right shoulder underlying bone muscles were exposed.

The order of the High Court is supported by learned Counsel for the accused persons.

It is noticed that the injuries were definitely of a very serious nature, as these injuries noted above go to show. The trial Court has imposed a sentence of 10 years in respect of offence relatable to Section 307 IPC. The High Court has not indicated any reason for reducing the sentence to 7 years.

4. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his "Law in Changing Society" stated that, "State of criminal law continues to be - as it should be - a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. For instance a murder committed due to deep-seated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an organised crime or mass murder