1. Assault causing death — Conviction under Section 304 Part II, IPC — Appeal against reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 328
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellants
Versus
Suresh – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1837 of 2015)
Decided on : 20-02-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
The punishment should be proportionate to the crime and courts should not show undue leniency.
The punishment should be proportionate to the crime and courts should not show undue leniency.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sentencing
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 304 Part II and 201 – Respondent tried u/s 302 – Trial court convicting him u/s 304 Part II – Trial court also acquitting respondent u/s 201 on being convicted for the main offence – Trial court imposing RI for 3 years – High Court modifying the same to period undergone, i.e., 3 months 21 days – Penology – Proportionality of punishment – Trial court already punishing respondent leniently – Further indulgence by High Court, held, uncalled for. (Para 17, 18, 21)
(2012) 2 SCC 648; (2003) 8 SCC 13 – Relied upon
AIR 1953 SC 131; (2004) 4 SCC 75; (2000) 5 SCC 82; (2005) 5 SCC 554; (1996) 2 SCC 175 – Referred
(1998) 9 SCC 319 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
In this appeal, the appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh has called in question the judgment and order dated 27.11.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 1998 whereby, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, even while upholding the conviction of accused (respondent herein) for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), has modified the sentence of 3 years' rigours imprisonment as awarded by the Trial Court to that of the period already undergone i.e., 3 months and 21 days.
Finding of the Court:
Further indulgence by High Court was totally uncalled for.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. State contends sentence reduction lacks justification and ignores proportionality; Respondent argues age, lack of intent, and conduct justify the reduction. (Para 9 )
3. High Court ignored the gravity of patricide and the principle of proportionality, granting undue sympathy based on irrelevant factors. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 21 )
4. Sentencing must maintain proportionality between crime and punishment, balancing aggravating and mitigating factors to ensure deterrence and protect social order. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 19 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Trial Court's sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment restored. (Para 22 )
6. What is the principle of proportionality in criminal sentencing?
Criminal law prescribes liability according to the culpability of the conduct. Punishment must fit the crime, balancing aggravating and mitigating factors to ensure the sentence is commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
7. How does undue sympathy affect the sentencing process and the justice system?
Undue sympathy leading to inadequate sentencing harms the justice system and undermines public confidence in the efficacy of law, as it fails to respond to the society's cry for justice. (Para 12 , 19 )
8. Can the mere passage of time or mitigating factors alone justify a symbolic sentence for a grave crime?
No. Mere passage of time is not a clinching factor. Mitigating factors must be balanced against the gravity of the crime and its impact on social order to avoid inadequate punishment. (Para 15 , 17 , 19 )
9. What factors should a court consider when sentencing for an offence under Section 304 Part II, IPC?
The court must consider the gravity of the crime, the motive, the nature of the offence, and attendant circumstances, ensuring the sentence serves the twin objectives of deterrence and correction. (Para 13 , 17 )
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MAHESHWARI., J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal, the appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh has called in question the judgment and order dated 27.11.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 1998 whereby, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, even while upholding the conviction of accused (respondent herein) for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), has modified the sentence of 3 years' rigours imprisonment as awarded by the Trial Court to that of the period already undergone i.e., 3 months and 21 days.
3. The only question calling for determination in this appeal is: As to whether, in the given set of facts and circumstances, the High Court was justified in interfering with the punishment awarded by the Trial Court by reducing the same to the period of imprisonment already undergone?
4. The background aspects of the case, so far relevant for the question at hand could be noticed as follows: The prosecution case had been that on 13.05.1996, at about 4:30 p.m., the respondent assaulted his father Tulsiram with a blunt object causing fracture on the parietal region of skull; and the same night, victim succumbed to the injury at Betul Hospital. On the basis of the information received from the hospital that the deceased Tulsiram was brought to the hospital by the respondent Suresh in unconscious condition, Marg Information No. 0/30/96 was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C. However, when it was noticed from the statements of PW-3 Sawalbai, PW-6 Basanti Bai and PW-10 Sarpach Sukhlal that the respondent was seen hitting his father, he was arrested on 20.05.1996 and FIR in Crime No. 120/1996 (Ex. P-19) came to be registered at police station, Amla. After due investigation, the respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 201 and 302 IPC.
5. In trial, the prosecution, inter alia, relied on the testimony of PW-3 Smt. Sawalbai who stated that while working in a field near the place of incident, she had seen the respondent assaulting his father with a lathi (wooden log). PW-2 Babulal stated that upon hearing the cries of PW-3, he saw the accused assaulting someone; he reached the spot and found that the injured person was the father of accused; and he prevented the accused from further assaulting his father. PW-4 Dinesh alias Mathu corroborated the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3. On the other hand, the accused-respondent attempted to suggest that his father sustained injury when he fell from the roof while putting up khapra.
6. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court rejected the defence version and found it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent did cause the fatal injury in question. However, the Trial Court proceeded to hold that the act of the accused-respondent had been of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and he was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. The Trial Court was of the view that while causing injury to the head of the deceased, the accused-respondent knew that his act was likely to cause death but he had no such criminal intention as defined in Section 300 IPC and hence, he was not guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court further found that the accused furnished a wrong information about accidental injury to the victim so as to save himself from legal punishment and hence, he was also guilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC. However, for the reason that the accused stood convicted for the main offence, the Trial Court chose not to convict him for the offence under Section 201 IPC with reference to the decision of this Court in Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1953 SC 131.
7. Having thus convicted the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, the Trial Court found it just and proper to award him the punishment of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment while also observing that the period of detention already undergone (from 20.05.1996 to 09.09.1996) wou
