Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
UDHAM AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2014
Decided On : 22-10-2019
(A) Criminal Law – Just Sentence – Aspect of sentencing should not be taken for granted as this part of Criminal Justice System has determinative impact on society – Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on touch stone of three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test – Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, anti-social or abhorrent character of crime, state of victim – Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of criminal, gender of criminal, economic conditions or social background of criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defence, state of mind, instigation by deceased or any one from deceased group, adequately represented in trial, disagreement by a judge in appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list) – Under crime test, seriousness needs to be ascertained – Seriousness of crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of victim; (ii) loss of material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv) privacy breach. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 326/ 34 and 452 – Hurt and house trespass – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Sentence awarded by Trial Court reduced by High Court to period already undergone on the ground of first offence of respondent – Appeal by State – There is no detailed analysis of facts of case, nature of injuries caused, weapons used, number of victims, given by High Court in impugned order – High Court while sentencing accused, has not taken into consideration second charge proved against respondents-accused under Section 452 of IPC – Even the fact that respondents-accused had only undergone sentence of 4 days at the time of passing of impugned order, brings into question High Court pointing to the same as a reason for reducing their sentence – As such, order of High Court merits interference by this Court – Respondents-accused were convicted for offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, or of imprisonment of a term which may extend to ten years, and fine – They were also convicted under Section 452 of IPC which carries a maximum sentence of seven years along with fine – Respondents-accused were males of age 33 years, 33 years, 28 years and 70 years respectively at the time of incident – Facts of the case need to be balanced with fact that this was first offence committed by respondents-accused and that motive which is stated to be trivial – There is requirement to treat crime committed herein differently than other objectionable situations such as police atrocities – Impugned order of High Court modified. (Paras 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed by the appellant-State against final order dated 06.11.2012, passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2011, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by Respondents-accused herein and reduced sentence awarded by Trial Court to period already undergone for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 452 of the IPC.
Findings of Court:
Facts of the case need to be balanced with the fact that this was the first offence committed by respondents-accused and that the motive, which is stated to be trivial. There is a requirement to treat the crime committed herein differently than other objectionable situations such as police atrocities.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.
1. The present appeal is directed by the appellant-State against the final order dated 06.11.2012, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2011, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents-accused herein and reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the period already undergone for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 452 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution’s case is that the complainant lodged a report on 15.04.2008 that at around 9 p.m., while he was sitting inside his house with three other people, the respondents-accused barged in, carrying weapons. More specifically, respondent nos. 1 and 3 were carrying axes, while respondent nos. 2 and 4 were carrying sticks. The respondents-accused asked the complainant why he had not kept his cow tied, and subsequently, on respondent no. 4’s exhortation, the respondents-accused attacked the complainant and the others present at that time resulting in various injuries to them. Respondents-accused then allegedly threatened the complainant that if he did not keep his cow confined, he would be killed.
3. The Trial Court tried the respondents-accused and ultimately convicted them for the offences under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as the offence under Section 452 of IPC. The respondents-accused were sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty Only) each for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with a further fine of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty Only) each for the offence under Section 452 of IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. All sentences were made to run concurrently by the Trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved, the respondents-accused filed an appeal before the High Court, challenging only the quantum of sentence imposed on them by the Trial Court. Vide impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them, which was a period of 4 days, while enhancing the fine amount imposed upon them by Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) each. The respondents-accused were directed to deposit the enhanced fine within a period of 30 days, failing which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the State has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the High Court reducing the sentence awarded to the respondents-accused. The learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court erred in not considering the gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the respondents-accused had undergone imprisonment of only 4 days.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused submitted that the High Court has correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in passing the impugned order, and therefore, the same does not merit any interference from this Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the reasoning of the High Court, for passing the impugned order and partly allowing the appeals of the respondents-accused herein, is limited to one sentence. The High Court states in its order that looking to the nature of the offence, the fact that this is the first offence of the respondents and the period of sentence already undergone by them, it is passing the impugned order.
9. At this stage the observations of this Court in Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 1, in which two of us were part of the Bench, with respect to sentencing in India are
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
