Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2015

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 5382 of 2014)

State of Punjab …..Appellant

versus

Bawa Singh …..Respondent

JUDGMENT

M. Y. EQBAL, J.

Leave granted.

2.This appeal by special leave is directed against the

judgment dated 11.11.2013 passed by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana in Crl. Rev. No. 1789 of 2013 whereby

the High Court upheld the conviction of the respondent but

1

Page 2 reduced the period of sentence to the period already

undergone.

3.The facts of the case in brief are that a FIR No. 151

dated 31.10.2004 was lodged against the respondent Bawa

Singh and his wife Labh Kaur. The complainant Binder Singh

alleged that on 30.10.2004 while he was going on his tractor

to his fields he saw the respondent with a cycle and carrying

a gandasa accompanied by his wife Labh Kaur whereupon he

stopped his tractor. The respondent and his wife were

alleged to have said that the complainant needed to be

taught a lesson and allegedly hit the complainant with the

gandasa. The cries of the complainant alerted his father

Jangir Singh and his brother Hardev Singh who rushed to the

spot whereupon the respondent and his wife fled abandoning

the cycle. The complainant alleged that there was a property

dispute between the parties. The complainant was admitted

to a hospital and his statement was taken only on the next

day i.e. 31.10.2004 on him being declared fit to do so. The

2

Page 3 site plan was prepared. The cycle was recovered from the

spot and the gandasa was recovered on the basis of the

disclosure statement of the accused. The respondent and

Labh Kaur were arrested on 07.11.2004 and charges were

framed against them under sections 323 and 326 IPC r/w

section 34 IPC.

4.The prosecution examined PW1 for proving personal

search memo, PW2 Jangir and PW3 Hardev who deposed to

not having seen the accused inflicting the injures, PW4

Binder/complainant who supported the prosecution case,

PW5 Investigating Officer who proved the possession memo

of the cycle and gandasa and PW6 Doctor who examined the

complainant and found few simple injuries and one grievous

injury on the finger.

5.It was pleaded on behalf of the accused that the cycle

allegedly left behind had not been produced. It was alleged

that the depositions of PW 2 and 3 could not be relied upon

3

Page 4 as they were not eye witnesses and were interested

witnesses and that the injuries on the complainant or the

admitted injuries on the accused were not explained. It was

also alleged that there was an unexplained delay in lodging

the FIR.

6.The trial court held that the statements of PW-2 Jangir

and PW-3 Hardev were relevant and not merely hearsay

evidence and that their statements would not be unreliable

merely because they were relatives. The delay in filing the

FIR was held to be explained as the complainant was proven

to be unfit to make the statement on the day of the incident.

The court further noted that though the accused claimed to

have been injured, they had not filed a complaint or put any

suggestion regarding the same to the prosecution witness.

The injuries on the accused were simple in nature. It was

held that non-production of the cycle or the blood soaked

soil was not fatal to the prosecution case. The court held that

the conduct of the accused in travelling one kilometer from

4

Page 5 their house armed with a gandasa and inflicting injuries on

the complainant proved their common intention and that the

medical evidence proved that the injuries inflicted were

simple and in one instance grievous in nature. The trial court

convicted the respondent and sentenced him to rigorous

imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- for offence

punishable under section 326, IPC and rigorous

imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- for offence

punishable under section 323 IPC. Labh Kaur was also

convicted under sections 326 and 323 IPC r/w section 34 IPC

and awarded the same sentence.

7.Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the

respondent and his wife preferred appeal to the Sessions

Court, which noted that there was documentary evidence

proving that the accused and the complainant were treated

by the same doctor. The presence of the accused at the

crime spot was thereby held to be proven. Labh Kaur had no

injuries on her person and the six injuries on the respondent

5

Page 6 were held to be simple and its non-explanation was,

therefore, held to be not fatal to the prosecution case. The

Sessions Judge held that though PW-2 and PW-3 reached the

spot afterwards, the statement of the complainant was

enough to conclude that it was the accused who inflicted the

injuries. The Sessions Judge, however, held that the finger

injury was erroneously held to have been grievous as the

radiologist who conducted the X-Ray of the said injury and

whose report was relied upon by PW-6 to hold the injury as

grievous, was not examined. The Sessions Court set aside

the conviction of the accused under section 326 IPC but

upheld their conviction under section 323 IPC upholding

other findings of the trial court. The Sessions Judge also

noted that Labh Kaur was an old lady, who herself had not

caused any injury to the complainant and was a first time

offender and released her on probation on a bond of

Rs.20,000/- after setting aside her sentence of imprisonment

with fine. The respondent was however sentenced to

imprisonment of one and half

years with fine of Rs.1000/-.

6

Page 7 8.Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the

respondent preferred revision before the High Court. The

respondent did not challenge the order of conviction but

sought reduction of the sentence awarded to the period of

imprisonment already undergone by him. The High Court

noted that the respondent had been in jail for 4 months with

remission of 15 days and that the incident took place on

30.10.2004 resulting in a trial for 9 years and granted the

prayer of the respondent subject to payment of Rs.20,000/-

to the complainant within two months. The revision petition

was disposed off accordingly vide the impugned judgment

reducing the sentence of the accused-respondent to the

period already undergone. Hence, the present appeal by

special leave by the State.

9.We have heard learned counsel for the parties

appearing on either side and perused the papers placed

before us.

7

Page 8 10.We are of the opinion that, in the instant case, after

proper appreciation of evidence the trial court as well as the

Sessions Court rightly came to the conclusion that the

accused-respondent is not entitled for benefit to probation

since he caused injuries on the person of the complainant

with Gandasa and dispute between the parties was already

pending. We are further of the opinion that the trial court

has not committed any illegality in passing the order of

conviction and in the appeal preferred by the accused

findings of the trial court were affirmed. However, without

proper appreciation of the evidence and consideration of

gravity of the offence, learned Single Judge of the High Court

has taken lenient stand, if not casual and shown undue

sympathy by modifying the conviction to the period already

undergone.

11.In our considered opinion, the High Court while passing

the impugned order has completely failed to follow the

8

Page 9 principles enunciated by this Court in catena of decisions.

Undue sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence

would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the

public confidence in the efficacy of law and the society

cannot endure long under serious threats. If the courts do

not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to

personal vengeance. Therefore, the duty of any court is to

award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the

offence and the manner in which it was committed. (See

Sevaka Perumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC

471).

12.In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana vs.

State of West Bengal , (1994) 2 SCC 220, this Court held

as under:

“In recent years, the rising crime rate-particularly

violent crime against women has made the criminal

sentencing by the courts a subject of concern. Today

there are admitted disparities. Some criminals get very

harsh sentences while many receive grossly different

9

Page 10 sentence for an essentially equivalent crime and a

shockingly large number even go unpunished, thereby

encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making

justice suffer by weakening the system's credibility. Of

course, it is not possible to lay down any cut and dry

formula relating to imposition of sentence but the

object of sentencing should be to see that the crime

does not go unpunished and the victim of crime as

also the society has the satisfaction that justice has

been done to it. In imposing sentences, in the absence

of specific legislation, Judges must consider variety of

factors and after considering all those factors and

taking an over-all view of the situation, impose

sentence which they consider to be an appropriate

one. Aggravating factors cannot be ignored and

similarly mitigating circumstances have also to be

taken into consideration.

In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a

given case must depend upon the atrocity of the

crime; the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless

and unprotected state of the victim. Imposition of

appropriate punishment is the manner in which the

courts respond to the society's cry for justice against

the criminals. Justice demands that courts should

impose punishment fitting to the crime so that the

courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The

courts must not only keep in view the rights of the

criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and

the society at large while considering imposition of

appropriate punishment.”

13.While considering this aspect, the Apex Court in the

case of Mahesh and others vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh, (1987) 3 SCC 80, remarked that,

“…it will be a mockery of justice to permit these

appellants to escape the extreme penalty of law when

10

Page 11 faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give

the lesser punishment for the appellants would be to

render the Justice system of this country suspect. The

common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he

understands and appreciates the language of

deterrence more than the reformative jargon. When

we say this, we do not ignore the need for a

reformative approach in the sentencing process. ….”

14.In the case of Hazara Singh versus Raj Kumar,

(2013) 9 SCC 516, this Court has observed that 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.

This Court further observed that 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

11

Page 12 Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of

proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.

15.In Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat,

(2006) 2 SCC 359, the Apex Court opined that

“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 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

12

Page 13 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.”

16.A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein

Vali Mohammed Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7

SCC 254, 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 (sic

break the) law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is

expected that the courts would 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 meagre sentences or taking too

sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time

in respect of such offences will be resultwise

counterproductive 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 but 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.”

13

Page 14 17.We again reiterate in this case 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

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. 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. Meagre 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 the society.

18.Recently, in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh

vs. Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281 and State of Madhya

14

Page 15 Pradesh vs. Surendra Singh , 2014 (12) SCALE 672, after

considering and following the earlier decisions, this Court

reiterated the settled proposition of law that one of the

prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of

adequate, just, proportionate punishment which

commensurate with gravity, nature of crime and the manner

in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind

the social interest and conscience of the society while

considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity

of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it

shocks the conscience of the society. It is, therefore, solemn

duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding

the sentence as awarding lesser sentence encourages any

criminal and, as a result of the same, the society suffers.

19. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the High

Court would show that while reducing the sentence to the

period already undergone, the High Court has not considered

the law time and again laid down by this Court. Hence the

15

Page 16 impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and

the matter is remanded back to the High Court to pass a

fresh order in the revision petition taking into consideration

the law discussed hereinabove after giving an opportunity of

hearing to the parties. The appeal is accordingly allowed

with the aforesaid direction.

…………………………… .J.

(M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………… .J.

(Kurian Joseph)

New Delhi,

January 15, 2015.

16