Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Banwari Lal and another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. of 2022 Arising out of Diary No. 21596/2020)
Decided on : 08-04-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307 and 324 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 360 – Attempt to murder and hurt – Conviction and sentence – Manner in which High Court has dealt with appeal and has reduced sentence, without adverting to relevant facts and without considering gravity and nature of offence, is unsustainable – High Court has dealt with appeal in a most casual and cavalier manner – Judgment and order passed by High Court reducing sentence is nothing but an instance of travesty of justice – Merely on technical ground of delay and merely on the ground that after impugned judgment and order, which is unsustainable, accused have resettled in their lives and their conduct has since been satisfactory and they have not indulged in any criminal activity, is no ground not to condone delay and not to consider appeal on merits – Doctor has also opined that injury, in ordinary course of nature, sufficient to cause death – Accused could have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and/or at least up to ten years – Trial Court had already taken a very lenient view while imposing sentence of only three years’ rigorous imprisonment – Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate – High Court has not at all adverted to relevant factors which were required to be while imposing appropriate/suitable punishment/sentence – High Court has disposed of appeal by adopting shortcuts – Accused did not press any challenge to conviction and prayed for reduction but an inadequate and inappropriate sentence has been imposed without assigning any further reasons and without adverting to relevant factors which are required to be considered while imposing appropriate punishment/sentence – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court interfering with order of sentence imposed by trial Court and sentencing accused to undergo sentence to period already undergone by him (44 days) from three years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed by trial Court under Section 307 IPC hereby quashed and set aside – Judgment and order passed by trial Court sentencing accused to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC hereby restored – State ought not to have preferred present appeal against co-accused when his appeal before High Court came to be dismissed and conviction came to be confirmed – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6.1, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 36/1993, by which High Court has partly allowed the said appeal and while maintaining the conviction of respondent no.1 herein for the offence under Section 307 IPC, has reduced the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him in confinement (44 days), and so far as the accused – Mohan Lal is concerned, High Court has not interfered with the order of the trial Court convicting him under Section 324 IPC, and releasing him on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C., State has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
In many cases the criminal appeals are disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated methods. In some cases, convictions under Section 302 IPC are converted to Section 304 Part I or Section 304 Part II IPC without assigning any adequate reasons and solely recording submissions on behalf of the accused that their conviction may be altered to Section 304 Part I or 304 Part II IPC.
Result ; Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 36/1993, by which the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal and while maintaining the conviction of respondent no.1 herein for the offence under Section 307 I PC, has reduced the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him in confinement (44 days), and so far as the accused - Mohan Lal is concerned, the High Court has not interfered with the order of the trial Court convicting him under Section 324 IPC, and releasing him on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C, the State has preferred the present appeal.
3. That the respondents herein and others were tried by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447 & 323 IPC and also under Section 307 IPC (so far as accused Banwari Lal -respondent no.1 herein is concerned). Respondent No.1 herein -Banwari Lal was tried for the offence under Section 307 IPC for having caused grievous injuries on the skull/middle of the head of the injured person - Phool Chand. That the injured Phool Chand sustained one lacerated wound of size 10 x 1 cms bone deep extending up to brain membrane in the centre of the skull and the bone was emerging out. He also sustained other injuries.
3.1 On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries suffered by the injured Phool Chand which were caused by the accused - Banwari Lal were sufficient for causing death, in the ordinary course of nature. By observing so, the learned trial Court convicted the respondent - Banwari Lal for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. However, so far as the accused Mohan Lal is concerned, the learned trial Court, though convicted him, but granted the benefit of probation.
3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the respondents - accused Banwari Lal and Mohan Lal, both, preferred an appeal before the High Court. Before the High Court, the main submissions were made on behalf of the accused - Banwari Lal, in which the respondents did not challenge their conviction but prayed to reduce the sentence so far as the accused Banwari Lal is concerned, on the grounds that occurrence took place on 31.03.1989, i.e., about 26 years ago; that they were facing trial since last 26 years; and when the occurrence took place, they were young and now they are old/aged persons. It was also submitted on behalf of the accused Banwari Lal that as the benefit of probation has been given to the accused Mohan Lal, he may also be given the benefit of probation. Thereafter, without assigning any further reasons whatsoever and without considering the nature or gravity of offence and the serious injuries caused by the accused Banwari Lal on the injured Phool Chand, the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal and while maintaining the conviction, has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him (44 days). The High Court has dismissed the appeal in respect of the accused Mohan Lal.
3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, interfering with the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court and reducing it to the period already undergone (44 days) from three years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Court insofar as accused Banwari Lal is concerned, as also, confirming the order of probation insofar as accused Mohan Lal is concerned, the State has preferred the present appeal.
3.4 There is a huge delay of 1880 days in preferring the appeal and therefore a separate criminal miscellaneous application is filed by the State, praying to condone the delay.
4. Shri Visha
:Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate.
Principle of proportionality between crime and punishment has to be borne in mind – Principle of just punishment is bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for proportionate and just punishment based on the legal provisions and the circumstances of the case, emphasizing the discretion of the c....
The court reclassified the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent, emphasizing knowledge of likely death suffices under IPC Section 304 (Part-II).
The nature of injury is immaterial, and what is relevant is the nature of the weapon used to inflict the injury. Imposing appropriate sentences to protect society and deter criminals is crucial.
The court upheld the conviction for lesser charges due to prosecution flaws, emphasizing the need for proportionate sentencing in offences involving bodily harm.
The court upheld the need for sentences to be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the impact on the victims, modifying the penalties imposed by the Appellate Court.
Sentencing must reflect the gravity of the crime, ensuring adequate deterrence while avoiding undue sympathy and maintaining public confidence in justice.
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
