2022 Supreme(SC) 505

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representative – Appellant
Versus
Navjot Singh Sidhu & Ors. - Respondents
Review Petition (Crl.) No.477, 478, 479 of 2018 in CRL.A. No.58, 59, 60 of 2007
Decided on : 19-05-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Just Sentence – Principle of just punishment is bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence – An offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court.
(2) Hand can also be a weapon by itself.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Law – Just Sentence – While a disproportionately severe sentence ought not to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe law courts to award a sentence which would be manifestly inadequate, having due regard to nature of offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on society at large – Punishments are awarded not because of fact that it has to be an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather having its due impact on society – While undue harshness is not required but inadequate punishment may lead to sufferance of community at large – Any undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system and undermine public confidence in efficacy of law – Society can not long endure under serious threats and if courts do not protect injured, injured would then resort to private vengeance and it is duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner in which it was executed or committed – Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with atrocity and brutality with which crime has been perpetrated – Punishment is collective cry of society and while collective cry has to be kept uppermost in mind, simultaneously principle of proportionality between crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside – Principle of just punishment is bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence – There cannot be a strait-jacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude – An offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court – Disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates a victim of crime when offender goes unpunished or is let off with a relatively minor punishment as system pays no attention to injured’s feelings – Indifference to rights of victim of crime is fast eroding faith of society in general and victim of crime in particular in criminal justice system. (Paras 25, 26, 29 and 35)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304/34 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Common intention – Just sentence – Some material aspects which were required to be taken note of appear to have been somehow missed out at the stage of sentencing, such as physical fitness of respondent No.1 as he was an international cricketer, who was tall and well built and aware of force of a blow that even his hand would carry – Blow was not inflicted on a person identically physically placed but a 65 year old person, more than double his age – Respondent No.1 cannot say that he did not know effect of blow or plead ignorance on this aspect – Hand can also be a weapon by itself – When a 25 years old man, who was an international cricketer, assaults a man more than twice his age and inflicts, even with his bare hands, a severe blow on his (victim’s) head, unintended consequence of harm would still be properly attributable to him as it was reasonably foreseeable – Among the factors to be taken note of are defenceless and unprotected state of victim appropriate in facts of present case – Indulgence was not required to be shown at stage of sentence by only imposing a sentence of fine and letting respondent go without any imposition of sentence – In addition to t fine imposed it is appropriate to impose sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment to be undergone by respondent No.1. (Paras 24, 32, 33, 38 and 40)

Facts of the case:

Original controversy emanates from an FIR dated 27.12.1988 under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered by the Sub-Inspector of P.S. Kotwali of Patiala District, Punjab on the basis of the information given by one Shri Jaswinder Singh (Informant) about an occurrence around 12:30 p.m. at the traffic light of Battian Wala Chowk. The Informant and one Avtar Singh (PW-3 and PW-4 respectively) were travelling with the deceased, Gurnam Singh in a Maruti Car driven by the deceased. Apparently, a dispute arose on the right of way between the accused and the deceased and respondent No.1 (the first accused) came out of his vehicle, pulled out the deceased from his vehicle and inflicted fist blows. As per Informant his endeavour to intervene resulted even in the second accused (respondent No.2) (not mentioned in the FIR) getting out of the vehicle and giving fist blows to the Informant. It was alleged that the car keys of deceased’s car were removed by the accused and they fled from scene of occurrence. PW-3 and PW-4 took the deceased in a rickshaw to hospital where the doctors announced that Gurnam Singh was dead.

Punishment under Section 323 of the IPC has been prescribed as a sentence of a term which may extend to one year or a fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or both. In the present case, only the fine has been imposed. The question, thus, to be analysed is whether in the given factual scenario, grave error can be said to have been committed on the issue of sentence by not punishing with imprisonment of any term whatsoever.

Findings of Court:

The present case is not one where two views are possible such that review should not be exercised. It is a case where some germane facts for sentencing appear to have been lost sight of while imposing only a fine on respondent No.1 and, therefore, no question of choosing between two possible views arises.

Result : Review applications/petitions allowed.