Back
2013 Supreme(SC) 734
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. CHAUHAN, S.A. BOBDE, JJ.
State of M.P. - Appellant
Versus
Babulal & Ors. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.9420/2012)
Decided On : August 12, 2013
IMPORTANT POINT
One of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. The most relevant determinative factor of sentencing is proportionality between crime and punishment keeping in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society. It is a mockery of the criminal justice system to take a lenient view showing mis-placed sympathy to the accused on any consideration whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscious of the society being abhorrent to the basic principles of sentencing. it is the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding sentence as awarding a lesser sentence encourages a criminal and as a result of the same society suffers.
Headnote:Indian Penal code 1860, Sections 148, 324,326 and 149 - The learned Magistrate after trial convicted the respondents for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324/149 (two counts) and 326/149 (two counts) of IPC, and sentenced them to undergo one-one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100-100/- and two-two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.150-150/- respectively, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 10-10 days. Appeal filed by the respondents before the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed. In further appeal the High Court maintained the conviction of the respondents but reduced the sentence from 2 years to 3 months in view of the fact that the incident was more than 7 years old. Hence this State appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that four persons were injured and two of them had more than one head injury. There were too many injuries on their persons and some of them had been inflicted on vital parts of the body. The High Court could not be justified in taking a lenient view which reduces the administration of the criminal justice system to a mockery. The High Court was not at all justified in reducing the sentence from 2 years to 3 months. The Supreme Court restored the sentence awarded by the Magistrate.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The primary objective of criminal law is to impose a punishment that is adequate, just, and proportionate to the gravity and nature of the crime, as well as the manner in which it was committed. The punishment should reflect the seriousness of the offense and serve the social interest and societal consciousness (!) (!) .
-
The most relevant factor in sentencing is the principle of proportionality, which requires that the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. This ensures that the punishment is neither excessive nor lenient to the point of shocking societal conscience (!) .
-
It is a fundamental duty of the court to balance the interests of justice, societal norms, and the rights of the accused while awarding sentences. A lenient approach or showing undue sympathy, especially in cases involving serious injuries or brutality, undermines the criminal justice system and erodes public confidence (!) (!) .
-
The court must consider the extent of injuries inflicted, especially when vital parts of the body are involved, and the overall brutality of the act. Cases involving multiple injuries, injuries on vital organs, or injuries that demonstrate cruelty call for appropriate, often stringent, punishment to reflect the gravity of the offense (!) (!) .
-
The sentencing policy emphasizes that the punishment should serve as a deterrent and reflect societal abhorrence of the crime. Imposing a disproportionately lenient sentence in serious cases can be viewed as doing injustice to victims and society at large (!) (!) .
-
The court should avoid reducing sentences based solely on procedural delays or elapsed time since the offense, unless justified by the circumstances. Each case should be decided on its own merits, considering all relevant factors, including the nature of the crime and the evidence presented (!) .
-
The court has a duty to ensure that the punishment aligns with the severity of the offense, especially in cases involving violence and injury, to maintain societal confidence in the justice system. Excessive leniency, especially in heinous cases, is viewed as inappropriate and contrary to principles of justice (!) (!) .
-
In this particular case, the court found that the injuries inflicted were serious, multiple, and involved vital parts of the body. The High Court’s decision to reduce the sentence was deemed unjustified, and the original sentence imposed by the trial court was restored to uphold the principles of justice and societal interest (!) .
If you need further clarification or specific legal advice, please let me know.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (Gwalior Bench) in Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2010, by way of which the conviction of the respondents has been maintained under Sections 148, 324, 326 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `IPC’) as awarded by the learned trial court, however, the sentence has been reduced from 2 years to 3 months.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. One Sunil (PW.1) lodged a complaint with the police station Bhander on 21.3.2004 that his father Nahar Singh (PW.5) had gone to his agricultural field for guarding his crops, all the respondents came there on a tractor driven by Kallu, armed with axe, farsa and lathi etc. When the complainant Sunil tried to stop the tractor, the respondents started abusing him and on being asked not to abuse, the respondents caused injuries to the complainant Sunil (PW.1) with their respective weapons. When his father Nahar Singh (PW.5) came to rescue him, the respondents had beaten him of which he suffers injuries. In the meanwhile, on hearing hue and cry, brother of complainant, namely, Brijraj (PW.3) and one Kunwar Singh (PW.2) reached the spot and tried to intervene, they were also beaten by the respondents. When other persons namely, Kalyan Singh and Nirbhay Singh reached the spot, the accused persons fled away from there hurling threats to kill the complainant side.
B. In view of the complaint filed by Sunil (PW.1), the law came into motion. The police arrested the accused persons, weapons etc. were recovered on the basis of the disclosure statements made by them, and various memos were prepared.
C. After completing the investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the respondents under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324 and 506-B IPC. On the basis thereof, the charges had been framed against the respondents/accused under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506 Part 2, 326/149 (two counts), 324/149 (two counts).
D. In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined large number of witnesses. The learned Magistrate vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.9.2009 convicted the respondents for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324/149 (two counts) and 326/149 (two counts) of IPC, and sentenced them to undergo one-one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100-100/- and two-two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.150-150/- respectively, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 10-10 days.
E. Aggrieved, the respondents-accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2009 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Datia. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 15.1.2010.
F. The respondents further challenged the said order dated 15.1.2010 by filing Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2010 before the High Court which was disposed of vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2011.
Hence, this appeal by the State.
3. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant State, has submitted that if the criminal proceedings has protracted for 7-1/2 years that could not be a ground for reducing the sentence from two years to 3 months only by the High Court. Such a reduction of sentence is not justified, particularly, when the respondents did not argue their case on merit at all. In case, the High Court earlier had reduced the sentence in a similar manner that cannot be a precedent as other case is to be decided on its own merit. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court should be restored and the order of the High Court requires to be modified to that extent.
4. On the contrary, Shri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that the respondents faced the criminal prosecution for a long time and the sentence was
