1. Assault causing grievous injury — Conviction under Sections 323 and 325, IPC — Appeal for enhancement of sentence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 755
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal & Another - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 959 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3509 of 2016
Decided On : 01-08-2018
IMPORTANT POINT
Sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed.
Headnote:Criminal jurisprudence – Sentencing – No structured sentence guidelines in India – wide discretion to judges within maximum and minimum sentences prescribed – Principles laid down by Supreme Court – Sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed – Instantly victim sustaining a grievous injury on a vital portion of the body – High Court sentencing to 6 days imprisonment only – Sentence enhanced to 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) against the accused. (Para 13, 15)
(2013) 11 SCC 382; (2012) 2 SCC 648 – Relied upon [Para 12]
Facts of the case:
The respondent was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
High Court has affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence from 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offences under Section 325, IPC and 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/-under Section 323, IPC to the period already undergone, i.e., 6 days.
The State has come up for enhancing the sentence.
Finding of the Court:
Both the courts below had been too lenient to the accused.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State seeking enhancement of sentence against the High Court's reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 )
3. The High Court's reduction of the sentence to six days was overly lenient, ignored the life-threatening nature of the injury, and shocked the judicial conscience. (Para 9 , 14 )
4. Sentencing must be just, proportionate, and commensurate with the gravity of the crime, balancing deterrence and correction while considering the harmfulness of the offence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed — Sentence enhanced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine, with the fine awarded as compensation to the victim. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. What principles guide the imposition of sentences in India in the absence of structured guidelines?
Courts exercise discretion based on principles of proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation, ensuring the sentence is commensurate with the seriousness and harmfulness of the offence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. How is the seriousness of a criminal offence determined for the purpose of sentencing?
The seriousness of an offence is determined by its harmfulness and the consequences resulting from the criminal action, which must be reflected in a proportionate sentence. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. What are the primary objectives of sentencing policy according to the court?
The twin objectives of sentencing policy are deterrence and correction, aiming to impose an appropriate, adequate, and just sentence based on the gravity of the crime and attendant circumstances. (Para 12 , 13 )
9. What is the potential impact of imposing inadequate sentences on the justice system?
Inadequate sentences can cause the public and victims to lose confidence in the judicial system, potentially leading victims to resort to private vengeance. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted.
2. Judgment dated 25.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in Appeal No.215 of 1992 is questioned in this appeal by the State with the prayer for enhancement of sentence. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court, Sambharlake in Sessions Case No.14/1992 for the offences under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but has reduced the sentence from 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-for the offences under Section 325, IPC and 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/-under Section 323, IPC to the period already undergone.
3. The accused (respondent herein) was charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 447, 323 and 341, IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambharlake, by the judgment dated 19.05.1992 in Sessions Case No. 14/1992 convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323, IPC. The Sessions Court imposed a sentence of 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-for the offences under Section 325, IPC; and 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/-was imposed for the offence under Section 323, IPC. On appeal by the convicted accused, the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench confirmed the judgment of conviction but reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused. By then, the accused had undergone 6 days’ imprisonment only. Being aggrieved by the meagre sentence, the State is before us as an appellant praying for enhancement of sentence.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that due to old enmity relating to a land dispute, one Kapurchand was assaulted by the accused; one Phoolchand who intervened in the fight also sustained an injury because of the assault by the accused. As mentioned supra, the accused was tried for the offences under Sections 307 and 326, IPC apart from other offences, but was convicted for the offences under Sections 325 and 323, IPC.
5. During the course of the trial, the informant (PW1), the injured Kapurchand (PW2) and the second injured Phoolchand (PW5) were examined, apart from other witnesses, including the doctor who treated the injured. The trial court has found the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 consistent, cogent, reliable and trustworthy and proceeded to convict the accused. The doctor fully supported the case of the prosecution. The medical records, including the evidence of the Doctor, conclusively prove that injury no.1 sustained by PW2-Kapurchand was a grievous injury, in as much as Kapurchand sustained a fracture of the right parietal bone.
6. It is clear from the judgment of the High Court that though the accused had filed an appeal questioning his conviction and sentence before the High Court, during the course of arguments he did not press the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction, praying only for reduction of sentence. The High Court decided the Criminal Appeal accepting such request, and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. However, as a matter of fact, as mentioned supra, the accused had, by then, been in confinement only for 6 days.
7. Since the accused has not filed further appeal and as this appeal has been filed by the State praying for enhancement of sentence, we have decided this appeal confining ourselves to the sentence to be imposed.
8. The Medical Officer of the authorized Primary Health Centre, Kishangarh Renwal, examined the injuries sustained by the two injured, viz. Kapurchand and Phoolchand. While Phoolchand had sustained only one injury of a simple nature, which was inflicted by a blunt object, Kapurchand had sustained two injuries, out of which one was simple and the other was serious. Therefore, Kapurchand was advised to undergo an X-ray. The X-ray report (Exhibit-P4) revealed that his right pa
