Sentencing must adhere to the principle of proportionality, taking into account the nature of the crime, the circumstances of the commission, the age of the accused, and the significant lapse of time since the incident to ensure the punishment is neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.

Court No. - 82

1. The instant criminal appeal, has been filed by the accused-appellants Sukkar, Chauhal, Parmal and Beeja all residents of village Simlana, Police Station Badgaon, District Saharanpur against the Judgement and order of conviction dated 14.06.1983 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1982 (Stae Vs. Sukkar and others) Police Station Badagaon, District Saharanpur, whereby sentencing the appellants to undergo for R.I. of five years for the offence under Sections 307/34 I.P.C., and six months R.I. for the offence under Sections 324/34 I.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the accused appellants nos. nos. 1, 2, 4 namely Sukkar, Chauhal and Beeja have died and the instant appeal as against them have already been abated vide order dated 16.01.2026 passed by co-ordinate Bench of of this court.

3. Accordingly, the instant appeal is being heard as against the appellant no.3 namely, Parmal.

4. Sri Arvind Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has contended that he is not disputing the conviction of the accused-appellant and the findings of fact rendered by the Trial Court and he has confined his argument regarding sentence only. It was submitted that the incident took place in the year 1981 and since then a period of 43 years has been passed. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that substantial part of sentence, awarded by the court below, has already been undergone by the accused-appellant and thus, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned AGA has argued that the conviction of accused-appellant is based on evidence and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order.

6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Perusal of record shows that it is a case of assault upon the injuired Chandrapal, Gayasu and Pool Singh with Bhala (spear) and Balkati with an intention to cause death any one of them. After adducing of evidence by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 307/34 and 323/34 I.P.C.

8. So far the question of sentence is concerned, it may be observed that while fixing the punishment for any particular crime, the court should take into consideration the nature of offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. It is the duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 it was observed that sentence should not be either excessively harsh or ridiculously low. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the principle of proportionately. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.

9. In S hyam Narain vs State (NCT of delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77, it was pointed out that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be imposed with regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the princi