The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proportionate punishment and the consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J:

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of the State challenging the order on sentence dated 27th May, 2019 passed by ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 506/2017 arising out of FIR No. 111/2017 registered with Police Station, Swaroop Nagar whereby the respondent-accused had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the time already undergone by him for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 IPC.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

2. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State contended that the Trial Court in its impugned order, had failed to appreciate that the respondent-accused had attempted to commit murder of Ashish and had caused injuries with a knife. She submitted that the sentence awarded to the respondent-accused was inadequate and should be enhanced. In support of her submission, she relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Saleem @ Chamaru & Anr., 2005 (5) SCC 554 wherein it has been held as under:-

“3. .....The High Court found that the accused persons are illiterate persons belonging to lower-income group and on consideration of the fact that at the time of commission of offence they were of 23 years of age, the sentence of imprisonment deserved to be reduced to the period already undergone. Appeal was accordingly disposed of. xxx xxx xxx 6. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 724 : AIR 1991 SC 1463].

xxx xxx xxx

10. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should ‘respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal”.

xxx xxx xxx

13. ….Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.”

3. She submitted that in the present case the Trial Court had erroneously accepted the contention advanced by the respondent-accused of ‘plea bargaining’. She stated that the concept of negotiated settlement in criminal cases is not permissible. She further submitted that neither the State nor the Public Prosecutor or even the Judge can bargain that evidence would not be led or appreciated in consideration of getting flea-bite sentence by pleading guilty. In support of her submission, she relied upon the judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Chandrika (1999) 8 SCC 638, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“2. These appeals by special leave are filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 28-11-1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeals Nos. 2747-48 of 1980 whereby the High Court accepted the plea bargain and maintained the conviction of the respondent under Section 304 Part I IPC but altered the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone (without stating the actual period of imprisonment undergone by the respondent) plus a fine of Rs 5000, in default of payment RI for six months. The respondent along with two others was charged under Section 302 read with Sections 307 and 34 IPC for committing the murder of one Shyamadeo in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1980…..

3.