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 3rd 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