http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 822 of 2005

PETITIONER:

State of Madhya Pradesh

RESPONDENT:

Saleem @ Chamaru and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/07/2005

BENCH:

Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

This is another sad example where a learned Single Judge, Madhya Pradesh

High Court, totally oblivious of the consequences has passed an order

directing reduction of the custodial sentence to the period already

undergone. We have come across a large number of such cases which have

been disposed of in very casual and mechanical manner with no trace of

application of mind regarding the question of sentence.

The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ’accused’) faced trial for

commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 307, 333, and 506

(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’). Allegation was

that on 2.4.2002 around 9 P.M. at a public place near the bookstall on

platform nos. 2 & 3 of Harda Railway Station, they misbehaved and abused

constable complainant Umesh Singh in vulgar words. They committed criminal

intimidation by threatening to kill him. Accused Deepak alias Deepu was

charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 333 IPC

for assaulting the complainant on the right side of his neck with sharp

edged weapon with the intention to kill him and also for deterring a public

servant from performing his public duty by voluntarily causing grievous

hurt with a sharp-edged weapon. Accused Salim @ Chamaru was charged under

Sections 333 and 307 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Learned Third

Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad found accused Salim @ chamaru guilty

of having committed offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section

34 IPC and Section 333 read with Section 34 IPC. He was sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and four years respectively.

Fine of Rs. 1,000 was also imposed for the first named offence with default

stipulation and Rs. 250 for the second named offence with default

stipulation. Accused Deepak was found guilty of offences punishable under

Sections 307 and 330 IPC and was directed to undergo custodial sentence of

five and four years respectively with a fine of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500

respectively with default stipulation. The accused persons preferred

Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2003. At the time of hearing of the appeal

learned counsel appearing for the accused person submitted that the fine

amounts had been deposited and since they had suffered custodial sentence

of nearly six months 23 days, leniency should be shown. It is to be noted

that the conviction was not challenged. 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.

Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the offences were

quite serious in nature and, therefore, the undeserved sympathy shown by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

the High Court and that too on clearly untenable grounds cannot be

maintained.

In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High

Court has taken note of the ground realities and the reasons indicated

justified reduction of sentence. It was further submitted that apart from

the reasons indicated other grounds were also pressed into service by the

accused persons to substantiate their prayer for reduction in sentence.

These have not been noted by the High Court.

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 h