Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1241  OF 2015 (Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 95/2014)

Jasbir Singh … Appellant (s)   

Versus

Tara Singh and others … Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:

 Leave granted.  

2. The  de  facto complainant  has  come  up  in  appeal

aggrieved by the alleged lenient view taken by the High Court

in the impugned judgment with regard to the sentence.

3. The party-respondents were tried under Sections 466,

467,  468,  471,  120B of  the  Indian Penal  Code (45 of  1860)

(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) for having committed a serious

offence of forgery of documents in order to grab the property of

one  Harbans  Singh.  The  trial  court  imposed  the  following

sentence: 1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

“Name of   Section    R.I.  Fine (Rs.)      In Default Accused     

Partapa     466 IPC       2 years      500/-    One month

Tara Singh   466/120-B   1 year       500/-    One month

                  467 IPC       3 years    1000/-   Two months

              468 IPC       3 years    1000/-    Two months

  471 IPC     2 years     500/-   One months

Bhajan Singh 467 IPC     3 years   1000/-     Two months

                468 IPC     3 years   1000/-     Two months

Charan Dass  467 IPC     3 years   1000/-     Two months

               468 IPC      3 years   1000/-  Two months   

Dalbir Singh    467 IPC      3 years   1000/-    Two months

            468 IPC       3 years   1000/-     Two months”

4. The appeal by the party-respondents was dismissed. In

Revision,  it  appears  the  challenge  was  limited  only  to  the

quantum of sentence. As a matter of fact, notice issued by this

Court is limited to the question of quantum of sentence only.

The party-respondents mainly contended on prolonged trial and

their advanced age. To quote the relevant submissions:

“…  Learned counsel  for  the petitioners contends that the petitioners are facing agony of trial since registration of the FIR i.e. 25.6.1996 and they are in  the  age  group  of  45  to  58.  Learned  counsel further  contends  that  the  petitions  are  first offenders,  they are neither previous convicts nor are  having  any  criminal  background.  Learned

2

Page 3

counsel prays that keeping in view the age of the petitioners  and  also  the  fact  that  they  have already suffered a lot of mental agony as they are facing trial since 1996, their sentence, therefore, be  reduced  to  the  period  already  undergone by them. …”

5. The High Court passed the following order:

“Heard  the  arguments  advanced  by  learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are first  offenders  and  are  not  having  any  criminal background  and  are  facing  agony  of  trial  since registration  of  FIR  i.e.  25.6.1996,  the  present petition is  partly allowed. The judgments passed by  Courts  below qua  conviction  are  upheld  and sentence  of  the  petitioners  is  reduced  to  the period already undergone by them.”

6. The actual period undergone by the party-respondents

is as follows, as noted in the impugned judgment:  

“As  per  the  custody  certificate  issued  by  Jail Authorities,  as  on  24.05.2013,  the  custody period/actual  period  undergone  (excluding remission) of the respondents is:

Tara Singh - 4 months 26 days,

Bhajan Singh - 5 months 24 days,

Charan Dass - 5 months 26 days,

Dalbir Singh - 5 months 24 days.”  

3

Page 4

Learned Counsel  for  the party-respondents submits  that

they have undergone a few more days incarceration in the jail.  

7. The appellant submits that the offences being grave in

nature, the High Court should not have let them go lightly.

8. Heard  the  learned  Counsel  appearing  for  the

party-respondents as well.

9. The prescribed maximum punishment for offence under

Section 466 of IPC is seven years and fine; under Section 467 of

IPC, it is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years

and fine; under Section 468 of IPC, it is seven years and fine

and under Section 471 of IPC, it is two years or with fine or

both.   The  trial  court,  having  regard  to  the  very  same

submissions made before the High Court, passed the sentence

which we have extracted above.

10. Though it is not possible for this court to lay down strict

principles on sentencing in the absence of a sentencing policy

for the State, certain indicators need to be born in mind by the

Courts. The gravity of the offence, the mitigating factors and

circumstances  like  parties  buying  peace,  parties  settling  the

disputes and getting reconciled, victim subsequently becoming

4

Page 5

part of the family, victim showing interest in getting monetarily

compensated, etc., the motive for commission of the crime, the

manner in which it was planned and committed, the prescribed

punishment and the social abhorrence of the offences are but a

few of them. These factors would help the court to discern and

decipher the appropriate purpose of punishment and to enter a

satisfaction  that  justice  has  been  done.  Unless  there  are

mitigating circumstances which were omitted to be noted by

the trial court, the appellate/revisional court will not be justified

in arbitrarily reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court.

And in any case, when the appellate/revisional court reduces

the sentence, the factors leading to such reduction should be

reflected in the order.

11. In this context,  it  would also be profitable to refer to

Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, wherethis Court held that

the  punishment  should  reflect  the  society’s  cry  for  justice

against the criminals. To quote:

“14. The  general  policy  which  the  courts have followed with regard to sentencing is that the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which

1

(2010) 12 SCC 532 5

Page 6

the courts respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that  the  courts  reflect  public  abhorrence  of  the crime.”

12. In the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed and

impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to the

High  Court  for  passing  an  appropriate  order  in  the  case  in

accordance with law.                                

  ....…….…..…………J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)

….................……J. (ARUN MISHRA)

New Delhi; September 21, 2015.  

6