Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 603-604 OF 2013

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 2014-2015 of 2009)

Hazara Singh .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Raj Kumar & Ors. ....

Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam, J.

1)Leave granted.

2)These appeals are directed against the common final

judgment and order dated 03.11.2008 passed by the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal

Appeal No. 4-SB of 1997 and Criminal Revision No. 416 of

1997, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed

by the respondents herein by reducing the sentence

1

Page 2 awarded to them to the period already undergone and

dismissed the revision preferred by the appellant herein.

3) Brief facts:

(a)According to the prosecution, on 25.04.1994, Dr. P.

Aggarwal, Medical Officer, C.H.C. Ladwa, sent a ruqa to the

Police Station informing that Mehma Singh, Piara Singh and

Hazara Singh have been admitted to the hospital after

allegedly having received injuries in a fight. Mehma Singh

was serious and had been referred to the L.N.J.P. Hospital,

Kurukshetra. After receipt of the said ruqa, on 26.04.1994,

Raj Pal Singh, S.I., In-charge Police Station, Babain, went to

the hospital and recorded the statements of the injured.

(b)Hazara Singh, in his statement, alleged that he was a

resident of village Kassithal and was an agriculturist. That

about 6/7 years back, he had purchased 6 kanals of disputed

agricultural land in village Rampura from one Sat Pal,

possession of which was delivered to him. He along with his

family members harvested wheat crop from that land and

had kept it in their adjoining field.

2

Page 3 (c)On 25.04.1994, at about 6.30 p.m., his brother Piara

Singh was ploughing the above said land, with the help of a

tractor, while he along with his father was collecting the

harvested wheat crop in the adjoining field. At that time,

they suddenly, heard the noise of “bachao bachao” from his

brother Piara Singh. Thereafter, he noticed Piara Singh

jumping from the tractor and raising alarm coming towards

them and Kesho Ram and his brother, along with 5/6

persons, were lifting the harvested wheat crop and placing it

on the tractor. Raj Kumar was pouring diesel on the tractor

out of the can held by him. Then Kesho Ram lit the fire on

the tractor and Lal Chand and Bhag Singh ran after his

brother Piara Singh and encircled him. They started

inflicting lathi blows to his brother. He along with his father

went near their brother by raising alarm. When they

reached near their brother, Kesho Ram inflicted gandasi blow

over his head but he rescued it by lifting his right hand which

resulted in an injury in the middle of the right thumb and

fingers. Simultaneously, Annu and Tinna started inflicting

lathi blows upon him. In the meanwhile, Lal Chand, Raj

3

Page 4 Kumar and Bhag Singh started inflicting injuries on his father

and caused grievous injuries. On hearing their alarm,

Lachman Singh and Bhagat Singh were attracted from the

nearby fields. On seeing them, all the accused with their

respective weapons, i.e., lathis and gandasis ran away. All

three of them became unconscious due to the said injuries.

When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the

hospital, Ladwa.

(d)Upon this information, an FIR under Sections 148, 149,

323, 324, 435 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in

short “IPC”) was registered. After receipt of the opinion of

the doctor that the injuries sustained were dangerous to life,

an offence under Section 307 IPC was also added.

(e)After obtaining medical reports and completion of

investigation, all the accused were arrested and on their

disclosure statements, weapons of offence were recovered

and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After

hearing the parties, all the accused totaling six were charge

sheeted for the above-said offences. Out of the six accused,

two were held to be minors and were directed to be tried by

4

Page 5 the Juvenile Court. The remaining four accused (respondent

Nos. 1 to 4 herein) pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(f)The Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, by order

dated 21.12.1996, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1994 convicted

all the accused persons, namely, Raj Kumar, Bhag Singh,

Kesho Ram and Lal Chand for the offence punishable under

Section 307 IPC and sentenced Raj Kumar and Bhag Singh to

undergo RI for 5 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default,

to further undergo RI for 1 year, whereas Kesho Ram and

Lal Chand to undergo RI for 3 years and a fine of Rs.

10,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 9 months. In

addition to the above, all the accused persons were

convicted and sentenced under different heads.

(g)Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence,

the accused-respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4-SB

of 1997 whereas the appellant preferred Criminal Revision

No. 416 of 1997 for enhancement of sentence before the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

5

Page 6 (h)The High Court, by impugned order dated 03.11.2008,

dismissed the revision filed by the appellant and partly

allowed the appeal filed by the accused by reducing the

sentence to the period already undergone.

(i)Being dis-satisfied with the judgment of the High Court,

the appellant has preferred these appeals by way of special

leave before this Court.

4)Heard Mr. R.C. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant,

Ms. Naresh Bakshi, learned counsel for the State of Haryana

and Mr. Ashwani Antil, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1

to 4.

5)The only point for consideration in these appeals is

whether the High Court is justified in reducing the sentence

awarded to the accused persons to the period already

undergone. In view of the limited question relating to

sentence alone urged before the High Court, there is no

difficulty in confirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC,

accordingly, we do so.

6

Page 7 6)In order to understand the reasoning of the High Court

for reduction of sentence, it is but proper to refer Section

307 IPC which reads thus:

“307. Attempt to murder.- Whoever does any act with

such intention or knowledge, and under such

circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he

would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if

hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall

be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such

punishment as is hereinabove mentioned.”

From the above, it is clear that the maximum punishment

provided therein is imprisonment for life or a term which

may extend to 10 years. Although Section 307 does not

expressly state the minimum sentence to be imposed, it is

the duty of the Courts to consider all the relevant factors to

impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has

bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the

sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care

and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly

proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the

offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can

assist the judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict.

7

Page 8 Sentencing Policy:

7)The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the

sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he

has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity

of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central

role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in

numerous cases.

8)The factual matrix of this case is similar to the facts and

circumstances of the case in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and

Another vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 2 SCC

359, wherein the accused was convicted under Section

307/114 IPC and for the same the trial Court sentenced the

accused for 10 years. However, the High Court, in its

appellate jurisdiction, reduced the sentence to the period

already undergone. In this case, this Court held that the

sentence imposed is not proportionate to the offence

committed, hence not sustainable in the eyes of law. This

Court, observed thus:

“7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting

claims and demands. Security of persons and property of

the people is an essential function of the State. It could be

8

Page 9 achieved through instrumentality of criminal law.

Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living

law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts

are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the

challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine

social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and

stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law,

which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.

Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of “order”

should meet the challenges confronting the society.

Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: “State

of criminal law continues to be - as it should be -a decisive

reflection of social consciousness of society.” Therefore, in

operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the

corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix.

By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it

should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to

be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the

nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and

committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the

conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all

other attending circumstances are relevant facts which

would enter into the area of consideration.

8. Therefore, 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.”

9) This position was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench

of this Court in Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed

and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254, wherein

it was observed as follows:-

“99.….The object of awarding appropriate sentence should

be to protect the society and to deter the criminal from

achieving the avowed object to law by imposing

appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would

9

Page 10 operate the sentencing system so as to impose such

sentence, which reflects the conscience of the society and

the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.

Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or

taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of

time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter

productive in the long run and against the interest of

society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by

string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.

100. Justice demands that courts should impose

punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect

public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only

keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime and the

society at large while considering the imposition of

appropriate punishment. 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 both the criminal and

the victim belong.”

In this case, the court further goes to state that meager

sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without

considering the degree of the offence will be counter

productive in the long run and against the interest of society.

10) In Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12

SCC 532, this Court reiterated the principle by stating that

the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the

gravity of the offence committed. Speaking about the

concept of sentencing, this Court observed thus: -

“15. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt

the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual

matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern

where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it

1

Page 11 warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each

case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was

planned and committed, the motive for commission of the

crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons

used and all other attending circumstances are relevant

facts which would enter into the area of consideration.

16. It is 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. The sentencing

courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and

circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and

proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the

gravity of the offence.”

11)In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa vs. State of

Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734, while discussing the concept

of appropriate sentence, this Court expressed that:

“It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence

is imposed regard being had to the commission of the

crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the

collective for justice, which includes adequate punishment

cannot be lightly ignored.”

12) Recently, this Court in Gopal Singh vs. State of

Uttarakhand JT 2013 (3) SC 444 held as under:-

“18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society.

While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the

mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality

between the crime and punishment cannot be totally

brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the

bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence…..”

1

Page 12 13)We reiterate that in operating the sentencing system,

law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence

based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances

in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it

was planned and committed, the motive for commission of

the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of

weapons used and all other attending circumstances are

relevant facts which would enter into the area of

consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to

impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the

justice system to undermine the public confidence in the

efficacy of law. It is 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. The Court

must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the

crime but also the society at large while considering the

imposition of appropriate punishment.

14)With these principles, let us consider whether the

reasons rendered by the impugned judgment falls within the

1

Page 13 parameter of the established principles. The relevant

paragraph in the impugned judgment are as under:-

“……Stress is that Raj Kumar has undergone 14 months of

sentence and so as Bhag Singh six months of sentence

whereas Kehso Ram and Lal Chand have undergone two

months’ sentence each and they are facing the agony of

trial since 1994. The purpose of criminal law justice is to

bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society and also

to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform

himself. In appropriate cases, leniency be shown and

opportunity is required to be given to the accused to

reform themselves by adopting reformative approach. It is

not in dispute that the parties are co-villagers. It has also

not been indicated that during all these years, they had

any further tiff among themselves. If the appellants are

sent behind bars, it will revive the old enmity between the

parties in the village. They have already suffered agony of

long trial/appeal for the last 14 years. Therefore it would be

expedient in the interest of justice to take a lenient view

that the sentence awarded to he accused deserves to be

modified and the injured complainants can be granted

compensation”

15)Now, let us analyze the reasoning mentioned in the

impugned judgment for reduction of sentence. It was

mentioned before the High Court that Raj Kumar has

undergone 14 months of sentence, Bhag Singh has

undergone six months of sentence, Kesho Ram and Lal

Chand have undergone two months of sentence each. It was

also noted by the High Court that they were facing the agony

of trial since 1994. In addition to the same, the High Court

1

Page 14 has noted that both the parties are co-villagers and during

pendency of these proceedings, they had no further tiff

among themselves. If the accused are sent behind bars, it

will revive the old enmity between the accused and the

victim’s family. Mentioning these facts, the High Court has

concluded that in the interest of justice, it is but proper to

take a lenient view and that the sentence awarded to the

accused deserves to be modified and the injured

complainants be granted compensation. By saying so, the

High Court reduced the sentence to the period already

undergone by them and directed the accused to pay a sum

of Rs.25,000/- each as compensation to all the three injured

persons, namely, Mehma Singh, Piara Singh and Hazara

Singh within three months from the date of its order, failing

which the appeal filed by them shall be treated as dismissed.

16)For the reasons best known to it, the State has not

challenged the said order of the High Court before this Court.

On the other hand, one of the complainants’, namely, Hazara

Singh has filed the present appeals by way of special leave

petitions. We have already concluded that the conviction

1

Page 15 relating to the offence punishable under Section 307 is

confirmed, in fact, it was not at all challenged. In the

present appeals, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

pointed out that considering the serious nature of the

injuries, period of treatment, agony undergone, reduction of

sentence to the period already undergone i.e. for a period of

few months is not justifiable and the decision of the High

Court is to be set aside and the order of the trial Court is to

be restored.

17)It is not in dispute that three persons were injured at

the hands of the accused persons and all of them were

examined by the doctors. Their injuries were evidenced by

certificates issued by the doctors, who treated them, which

read thus:

“PW-1 is Dr. K.K. Chawla, Medical Officer, L.N.J.P. Hospital,

Kurukshetra, who has proved x-ray report Ex.PA with

regard to Hazara Singh and has opined that as per x-ray of

left knee, it showed fracture of patilla left with regard to

remaining 5 injuries, i.e. X-ray of skull, left thigh, left

forearm, right hand and left shoulder of the injured, he has

stated that no bonny injury was found. With regard to

injured Piara Singh, he has stated that X-ray skull showed

no bonny injury. Simultaneously, x-ray chest right forearm

and left ankle showed no bonny injury. However, there

was fracture of left scapula as per x-ray of left shoulder.

The report in this behalf is Ex.PB.

1

Page 16 PW-2, Dr. P. Aggarwal, Medical Officer, C.H.C. Ladwa, has

examined Mehma Singh on 25.04.1994 at 9.25 p.m. and

found the following injuires on his person:-

1.Lacerated wound 1-1/2 cm x ½ cm x bone deep on the

left parietal region, 3 cm posterior to anterior hair line.

Surrounding parts in diameter of 8 cm was swollen.

Swelling was boggy in nature. X-ray and surgeon’s

opinion was advised.

2.Left eye was swollen and reddish blue in colour. Both

lids were swollen. Swelling was extending upto

forehead. X-ray and eye surgeon’s opinion was advised.

3.Contusion 10 cm x 1 cm each two in number on back of

left side of chest situated perpendicular on each other.

X-ray was advised.

4.Contusion 12 cm x 2 cm on outer side of left side of

abdomen x-ray and surgeon’s opinion was advised.

5.Lower half of left fore-arm was swollen. Crepitus was

present. X-ray was advised.

6.Two contusions on left buttock, surrounding parts

swollen, x-ray was advised.

7.Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on right side of nose bridge. X-

ray was advised.

He also examined Hazara Singh, son of Mehma Singh at

9.50 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person:

1.Lacerated wound 3 cm x ½ cm into bone deep on left

parietal region situated anterior posteriorily, 3 cm

posterior to anterior hair line. Fresh bleeding was

present. X-ray and surgeon’s opinion was advised.

2.Contusion 12 cm x 3 cm on antro lateral side of middle

of left thigh. Surrounding parts were swollen. X-ray

was advised.

3.Swelling was present on middle half of left fore-arm. X-

ray was advised.

1

Page 17 4.Incised wound 1 cm x ½ cm, x muscle deep on outer

side of right palm in between index finger and thumb.

Margins were cleancut. Fresh bleeding was present. X-

ray was advised.

5.Abrasions 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on back of right shoulder.

Movements were painful. X-ray was advised.

6.Lacerated wound 1 cm x ½ cm x skin deep on right sole

near base of second toe.

That during examination of the patient routine checking on

26.04.1994, he found one more injury on the person of

Hazara Singh as under:-

“There was faint reddish swelling, diffused all around the

left knee. Patient was complaining of severe pain. Injury

was tender to touch. Movements were painful and

restricted. X-ray left knee was advised.”

All the injuries on the person of Mehma Singh were found

to have been caused by blunt weapon. All the injuries

except injury No.4 on the person of Hazara Singh was

found to have been caused by blunt weapon. Injury No.4

was caused by sharp weapon.

That this doctor witness also examined Piara Singh at

10.05 p.m. and found the following 6 injuries on his

person:-

1.Lacerated wound 1-1/2 cm x ½ cm x bone deep on

middle of scalp with fresh bleeding situated 12 cm

posterior to anterial hair-line. X-ray and surgeon’s

opinion was advised.

2.Reddish swelling, diffused on back of left shoulder.

Movements of shoulder were very painful. Tenderness

was present. X-ray was advised.

3.Contusion 18 cm x 2 cm on lateral side of left side of

chest and abdomen situated vertically.

4.Abrasion 4 cm x 1 cm on back of right side of chest

surrounding parts were swollen. X-ray was advised.

5.Swelling diffused present on lower 3

rd

of right forearm.

X-ray was advised.

1

Page 18 6.Diffused swelling near left medial mallelous was

present. Movement at ankle joint was painful. X-ray

was advised.

All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Medical

Report in this behalf is Ex. PE and diagram showing seat of

injuries in this behalf is Ex. PE/1.

This witness has further proved his report Ex. PG to the

effect that the injury No.1 shown in supplementary M.L.R.

i.e. Ex. PH on the person of Hazara Singh was found to be

grievous. He also proved report Ex. PK to the effect that

injury No.2 on the person of Piara Singh, was also grievous

and rest were simple. He has also stated that on

28.04.1994, he received operation note of Mehma Singh

from P.G.I. Chandigarh, whereupon, he sent intimation Ex.

PL to the Police and declared injuries No.1 and 2 as

dangerous to life.

That PW-3 Dr. P. Vara Prasad, S.M.O., Casualty, P.G.I.

Chandigarh has proved his endorsement Ex. PM/1 and Ex.

PM/3 to the effect that on 02.06.1994 and 22.07.1994,

when the police wanted his opinion, Mehma Singh injured

was unfit for statement.

That PW-15, Hazara Singh injured, PW-16 Jaspal Singh, eye-

witness, PW-17 Piara Singh injured and PW-19, Mehma

Singh injured, have broadly supported the case of the

prosecution.”

After analyzing the above injuries with reference to the

specific evidence by the doctors concerned and the

certificates issued, the trial Court came to the following

conclusion:-

“a)In the present case, the prosecution has been able to

show that the witness was unable to speak during

investigation. Even, Dr. Ashwani Kumar Chaudhary, while

appearing in the witness box as PW-18, on 02.04.1996, has

stated after examining the witness orally in the Court, that

1

Page 19 his speech was blurred. When Mehma Singh appeared as

PW-19, he was feeling difficulty in speaking but since he

could be understood, what he wanted to say, his statement

was recorded. The perusal of his statement further shows

that during his examination, he was feeling difficulty in

speaking the name of the accused and he was allowed to

touch their person to depose about the part played by each

of the accused. As per the case of the prosecution, the

witness was injured in the occurrence and as such no

prejudice was caused to the accused in examining the

witness for the first time in Court.

b) That in view of the statements of these eye-

witnesses coupled with the medical evidence, it is proved

that the accused caused injuries in the manner

propounded by the prosecution. Although, the prosecution

has discharged its onus in proving its case, yet, to analyze

the defence, at this stage, would be relevant for the

purpose of deciding the complicity.

c) Resultantly, thus, I hold that on the date of

occurrence, the injured party were in possession of the

disputed land. The occurrence took place in the manner

propounded by the prosecution and further that the

accused have not acted in the right of private defence and

property.

d) In this view of the matter, and the fact that all the

accused formed an unlawful assembly and entered into the

field belonging to the injured and being in their possession,

they have committed an offence punishable under Sections

148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

e) The version of burning of the tractor by the accused

in furtherance of their common object of the assembly, has

been found proved and as such, they have also committed

an offence punishable under Section 435 read with 149 of

the Indian Penal Code.

f) It is proved that Bhag Singh inflicted injury with blunt

weapon on the left shoulder of Piara Singh. Copy of X-ray

report in this behalf is Ex. PB which shows fracture of bone.

He has thus committed an offence punishable under

Section 325 and the other accused are also liable for an

offence under Section 325 read with 149 of the Indian

Penal Code.

1

Page 20 g) In view of the M.L.R. of Hazara Singh, injury No. 4

was caused by sharp edged weapon i.e. gandasi by Kesho

Ram and he himself has held liable for an offence under

Section 324 of IPC and the other accused being members

of an unlawful assembly are liable for an offence under

Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

Code.

h) It is also proved that all the accused voluntarily

caused simple hurt to Mehma Singh, Piara Singh and

Hazara Singh and held themselves liable for an offence

under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian

Penal Code.

i) With regard to the offence under Section 307 IPC, Raj

Kumar accused has been charge-sheeted individually, for

causing the injury on the head of Mehma Singh with an

intention or knowledge and under such circumstances, that

if by that act, he had caused death of said Mehma Singh,

he would have been guilty of murder. The other accused

have been charge-sheeted with the aid of Section 149 of

IPC Bhag Singh accused, was also individually charged for

offence under Section 307 IPC and other accused were also

charged with the aid of Section 149 IPC for the act of Bhag

Singh.

18)The trial Court, after detailed analysis of the evidence

of doctors and the certificates issued, convicted the above

accused persons and passed the following sentence:

“a) Accused Raj Kumar U/s 307 IPC – RI for 5 years and fine

of Rs.10,000/- in default further RI of 1 year.

b) Accused Bhag Singh U/s 307 IPC – RI for 5 years and

fine of Rs.10,000/- in default further RI for 1 year.

c) Accused Kesho Ram U/s 307 IPC – RI of 3 years and

fine of Rs.10,000/- in default further RI for 9 months

d) Accused Lal Chand U/s 307 IPC – RI of 3 years and

fine of Rs.10,000/- in default further RI for 9 months.

Addition to the above all accused respondents were

awarded following sentence:-

2

Page 21 U/s 325 IPC – RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in

default further sentence for 6 months RI.

U/s 324 IPC – RI for 1 year

U/s 447 IPC – RI for 1 month

U/s 323 IPC – RI for 6 months.

U/s 148 IPC – RI for one year.

U/s 435 IPC – RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each in

default further sentence of RI for 6 months.”

19)It is clear that the High Court failed to take note of the

fact that as per the medical evidence, Injury No.1 shown in

supplement MLR on the person of Hazara Singh was found to

be grievous. Injury No.2 on the person of Piara Singh was

also found to be grievous whereas Injury Nos. 1 and 2

caused to Mehma Singh one was declared as dangerous to

life and it is also on record that injured Mehma Singh had

also lost his speech.

20)As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the

appellant, the High Court failed to appreciate that the trial

Court has come to the conclusion that in view of the

statement of injured eye-witnesses coupled with medical

evidence, it is proved that the accused caused injuries in the

2

Page 22 manner explained by the prosecution and passed

appropriate sentence to the accused respondents. We have

already stated that while dismissing the revision for

enhancement of sentence at the instance of the present

appellant and partly allowing the order of reduction of

sentence, the High Court has assigned only two reasons,

viz., “one, if the accused are sent behind bars, it will

revive the old enmity between the parties in the

village and secondly, the accused also suffered agony

of long trial/appeal for the last 14 years.”

21)It is unfortunate that the High Court failed to appreciate

that the reduction of sentence merely on the ground of long

pending trial is not justifiable. In Sadha Singh and

Another vs. State of Punjab, (1985) 3 SCC 225, a three

Judge Bench of this Court, while considering the identical

issue which also arose for an offence under Section 307 and

reduction of substantive sentence by the High Court, held as

under:-

“5. … We must confess that what ought to be the proper

sentence in a given case is left to the discretion of the trial

court, which discretion has to be exercised on sound

2

Page 23 judicial principles. Various relevant circumstances which

have a bearing on the question of sentence have to be

kept in view. Before deciding the quantum of sentence the

learned Sessions Judge has to hear both the sides as

required by the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

6. In an appeal against the conviction, it is open to the

High Court to alter or modify or reduce the sentence after

confirming conviction. If the High Court is of the opinion

that the sentence is heavy or unduly harsh or requires to

be modified, the same must be done on well recognised

judicial dicta. Therefore, we may first notice the reasons

which appealed to the learned Judge to reduce the

substantive sentence awarded to the appellants to

sentences undergone.”

While rejecting the similar reasons as stated by the High

Court in the present case, the following conclusion arrived at

by this Court are relevant:

“7. …. The learned Judge then took notice of the fact that

three co-accused of the appellants were given benefit of

doubt by the trial court and acquitted them although they

were also attributed causing of some injuries. If acquittal of

some co-accused casts a cloud of doubt over the entire

prosecution case, the whole case may be rejected. But we

fail to understand how acquittal of some of the accused

can have any relevance to the question of sentence

awarded to those who are convicted. In this case the

prosecution submitted that these two appellants alone

were armed with guns. Then the learned Judge observes

that no useful purpose, will be served by sending the

appellants to prison again to undergo the unexpired period

of their sentence. We repeatedly asked why this

indulgence and waited for answer in vain. If someone is

enlarged on bail during the pendency of appeal and when

the appeal is dismissed sending him back to jail is going to

raise qualms of conscience in the Judge, granting of bail

pending appeal would be counter-productive. One can pre-

empt or forestall the decision by obtaining an order of bail.

2

Page 24 8. If the learned Judge had in mind the provisions of

Section 360 of CrPC so as to extend the benefit of

treatment reserved for first offenders, these appellants

hardly deserve the same. Admittedly, both the appellants

were above the age of 21 years on the date of committing

the offence. They have wielded dangerous weapons like

firearms. Four shots were fired. The only fortunate part of

the occurrence is that the victim escaped death. The

offence committed by the appellants is proved to be one

under Section 307 of IPC punishable with imprisonment for

life. We were told that the appellants had hardly suffered

imprisonment for three months. If the offence is under

Section 307 IPC i.e. attempt to commit murder which is

punishable with imprisonment for life and the sentence to

be awarded is imprisonment for three months, it is better

not to award substantive sentence as it makes mockery of

justice. Mr Jain said that the High Court has enhanced the

fine and compensated the injured and, therefore, we

should not enhance the sentence. Accepting such a

submission would mean that if your pockets can afford,

commit serious crime, offer to pay heavy fine and escape

tentacles of law. Power of wealth need not extend to

overawe court processes. Thus it appears that the High

Court wrongly interfered with the order of sentence on

wholly untenable and irrelevant grounds some of them not

borne out by the record. In order, therefore, to avoid

miscarriage of justice we must interfere and set aside the

sentence imposed by the High Court and restore the

sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge which we

hereby order. Both the appellants shall be taken into

custody forthwith to suffer their sentence.”

22)Applying the same principles in State of U.P. vs.

Nankau Prasad Misra and Others , (2005) 10 SCC 503,

this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court reducing

the sentence without adequate reasons.

23)The second ground relied on by the High Court is that it

will further the enmity between the families of victim and the

2

Page 25 accused. In our considered view, this ground is irrelevant for

the purpose of determining the sentence to be awarded to

the accused. The Courts cannot let the accused go scot-free

on mere suspicion of eruption of enmity between the

families.

24)In our view, the reduction of sentence passed by the

High Court without appreciating the nature of offence,

grievous injuries of witnesses/victims, is unsustainable.

25)In addition to the factual matrix discussed in the earlier

paras, Dr. Ashwani Kumar Chaudhary (PW-18), after

examining the witness Mehma Singh, (PW-19), has stated

that his speech was blurred and he was feeling difficulty in

speaking. We are satisfied that from the statements of eye-

witnesses coupled with the medical evidence, it is proved

that the accused caused injuries in the manner as

propounded by the prosecution. It is also proved that Bhag

Singh inflicted injury with a blunt weapon on the left

shoulder of Piara Singh. Likewise, the M.L.R. of Hazara Singh

proves that the injury was caused by a sharp-edged weapon

i.e. gandasa by Kesho Ram. The High Court has failed to

2

Page 26 take note of a very relevant fact that with regard to the

offence under Section 307 IPC, Raj Kumar has been charge

sheeted individually for causing grievous injury on the head

of Mehma Singh with an intention or knowledge and under

such circumstances, if by that act, he had caused death of

the said Mehma Singh, he would have been guilty of murder.

26)Under these circumstances, we hold that the High Court

has wrongly interfered with the order of sentence on wholly

untenable and irrelevant grounds, some of them even not

borne out on record. To avoid miscarriage of justice, we

must interfere and accordingly, we set aside the sentence

imposed by the High Court and restore the sentence

imposed by the trial Court. All the respondents-accused,

namely, Raj Kumar, Keshav Ram, Lal Chand and Bhag Singh

shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve the remaining

period of sentence as ordered by the trial Court. The

appeals are allowed.

2

Page 27 ………… .…………………………J.

(P. SATHASIVAM)

………….…………………………J.

(M.Y. EQBAL)

………….…………………………J.

(ARJAN KUMAR SIKRI)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 18, 2013.

2