2021 Supreme(SC) 718

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., SURYA KANT, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Surinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2373 of 2010
Decided On : 26-11-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) ‘Motive’ is distinct from ‘object and means’ which innervates or provokes an action – Unlike ‘intention’, ‘motive’ is not the yardstick of a crime.
(2) Illegal use of a licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27, without proving misdemeanour under Section 5 or 7 of Arms Act.
(3) Sentencing policy keeps pace with changing time – Awarding of just and proportionate sentence remains solemn duty of Courts and they should not be swayed by non-relevant factors while deciding quantum of sentence.
(4) It must be candidly acknowledged that there is an element of discretion present while adjudicating the issue of sentence, however, the same cannot be exercised in an unprincipled manner.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Ingredients – For the purpose of constituting an offence under Section 307 IPC, there are two ingredients that a Court must consider, first, whether there was any intention or knowledge on part of accused to cause death of victim, and, second, such intent or knowledge was followed by some overt actus rea in execution thereof, irrespective of consequential result as to whether or not any injury is inflicted upon victim – Courts may deduce such intent from conduct of accused and surrounding circumstances of offence, including nature of weapon used or nature of injury, if any – Manner in which occurrence took place may enlighten more than prudential escape of a victim – It is not necessary that a victim shall have to suffer an injury dangerous to his life, for attracting Section 307 IPC. (Para 20)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 8 – Motive – ‘Motive’ is distinct from ‘object and means’ which innervates or provokes an action – Unlike ‘intention’, ‘motive’ is not the yardstick of a crime – A lawful act with an ill-motive would not constitute an offence but it may not be true when an unlawful act is committed with best of motive – Unearthing ‘motive’ is akin to an exercise of manual brain-mapping – At times, it becomes herculean task to ascertain traces of a ‘motive’ – Whilst motive is infallibly a crucial factor and is a substantial aid for evincing commission of an offence but absence thereof is, however, not such a quintessential component which can be construed as fatal to case of prosecution, especially when all other factors point towards guilt of accused and testaments of eyewitnesses to occurrence of a malfeasance are on record. (Paras 22 and 24)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Attempt to murder – Conviction and sentence – Prosecution has failed to attribute any motive to Appellant for yearning to kill Complainant, however, as absence of motive alone cannot abjure guilt of Appellant – Conduct of Appellant is sufficient to surmise that his action was intended to eliminate Complainant and that his conviction under Section 307 IPC is fully justified – Neither presence of Appellant at the site of episode, nor the fact that bullet was fired through his service pistol is disputed by Appellant – Even otherwise, CFSL Report proves that cartridge recovered from office of Complainant was fired from service pistol recovered from possession of Appellant – Alternate version set up by Appellant looks to be incredulous – There is also nothing on record to support that Appellant made any attempt at all to bring his version to notice of his Superiors, as claimed by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Trial Court and High Court have unerringly convicted Appellant for charge under Section 307 IPC – However, Appellant being in authorised possession of weapon, cannot be said to have used an unlicensed weapon, as prohibited under Section 5 of Arms Act – Illegal use of a licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27, without proving misdemeanour under Section 5 or 7 of Arms Act – At best, it could be a ‘misconduct’ under service rules, determination of which was not the subject of trial – Order of Trial Court in convicting Appellant or of High Court in maintaining such conviction under Section 27 of Arms Act, is unwarranted and unjust – Appellant acquitted of charge under Section 27 of Arms Act. (Paras 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31)

(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Sentence – Sentencing policy keeps pace with changing time – Primary emphasis while deciding quantum of sentence should lie on gravity or penal value of offense – However, other guiding elements of rehabilitative justice model, including, appreciation of grounds for mitigation of sentence also deserve to be duly considered within permissible limits of judicial discretion – Awarding of just and proportionate sentence remains solemn duty of Courts and they should not be swayed by non-relevant factors while deciding quantum of sentence – Naturally, what factors should be considered as ‘relevant’ or ‘non-relevant’ will depend on facts and circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down for the same – At this stage, sentence awarded to appellant is no longer in degree to crime which he has committed – No motive or element of planning has been proved by Prosecution in present case which indicates the possibility that offense could have been committed on impulse by Appellant – Culpability of offender in such situations is less than that which is ascribed in premeditated offenses as commission of planned illegal acts denotes an attack on societal values with greater commitment and continuity in comparison to spontaneous illegal acts – Even though factum of injury may not have a direct bearing on conviction under Section 307 IPC, same may be considered by Court at the time of sentencing – Appellant has already undergone a sentence of 3 months and 19 days – Appellant’s clean post-incident behaviour suggests that he is rational individual who is capable of responding to social censure associated with offence – Passage of a long time period coupled with a clean record, both before and after incident is definitely a factor that calls for mitigation of sentence – Appellant was suspended in year 1999 and has also been subsequently dismissed from service in year 2007 – This should also be considered as a reasonable factor for mitigation – While conviction and sentence awarded to Appellant under Section 27 of Arms Act set aside, his conviction under Section 307 IPC maintained – Sentence under Section 307 IPC reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 32, 34, 35 and 36)

Facts of the case:

Appellant has laid challenge to the judgement dated 19th May 2010 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, whereby, order of his conviction and sentence dated 25th July 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh was confirmed. Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years for both the offences, with a direction that sentences will run concurrently.

Findings of Court:

There are practical difficulties in achieving absolute consistency in regards to sentencing. It must be candidly acknowledged that there is an element of discretion present while adjudicating the issue of sentence, however, the same cannot be exercised in an unprincipled manner. This Court has explicitly ruled out the practice of awarding disproportionate sentences, especially those that showcase undue leniency, for it would undermine the public confidence in efficacy of law.

Result : Criminal Appeal Partly allowed.