Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1961  OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2162 of 2012)

JASVIR KAUR .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant along with her husband has been  

convicted under Section 420 of the Penal Code and both of them are  

sentenced to imprisonment for  two years and a fine of  Rs.2,000/-  

with the default sentence of 15 days’ imprisonment.   

The  special  leave  petition  giving  rise  to  the  

present appeal was filed both by the present appellant as petitioner  

No.1  and  her  husband  -  Ginder  Singh  as  petitioner  No.2.   The  

special leave petition at the instance of the husband was dismissed  

and in case of the appellant, notice was issued only on the question  

of sentence. We, accordingly, proceed to consider the appeal to that  

limited extent.   

According to the prosecution case Ginder Singh

Page 2

who  was  a  Head  Constable  in  the  Punjab  Police  extracted  

Rs.70,000/-  from the  informant  Angrej  Singh  by  making  the  false  

promise that he would arrange for a job for him in the Police.  The  

deal was struck at Rs.1,40,000/-; half of which, i.e., Rs.70,000/- was  

to be paid in advance and the balance half, after the employment  

was made.  It is further the prosecution case that on September 22,  

2002, the informant paid Rs.50,000/- to Ginder Singh at his quarter in  

the presence of his wife.  Ginder Singh took the money and handed it  

over to his  wife,  the present appellant,  who counted it  before the  

informant.  A few days later both the accused came to the house of  

the  informant  to  collect  the  balance  amount  of  Rs.20,000/-.  

Needless to say that neither any employment was provided to the  

informant nor was the money refunded to him.  

Both  the  accused  were  tried  by  Judicial  

Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridkot, who, by his judgment and order dated  

March 29, 2010, passed in Criminal Case No.543 dated 14-10-2005  

(arising  out  of  FIR  No.22  dated  June  2,  2004),  convicted  and  

sentenced the accused, as noted above.   

Their  appeal  (Criminal  Appeal  No.75  of  

14.10.2005)  was  dismissed  by  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

September 30, 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot and  

their  revision  [(Criminal  Revision  No.2576  of  2011)  (O&M)]  was  

similarly rejected by the High Court without any modification in the  

2

Page 3

conviction or sentence vide judgment dated November 28, 2011.  

Coming  now  to  the  issue  of  punishment,  

sentencing  of  the  convicted accused which is  at  the heart  of  the  

administration of criminal justice is both a delicate and difficult task.  

In Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar1 Krishna Iyer, J. quoted the English  

Judge Henry McCardie as saying “Trying a man is easy, as easy as   

falling off a log, compared with deciding what to do with him when he   

has  been  found  guilty”.  Unfortunately,  however,  the  question  of  

sentencing  does  not  receive  due  importance  and  the  requisite  

application of mind by the courts.  In our country, there is very little  

legislative,  judicial  or  any  other  kind  of  guidance  available  to  

meaningfully deal with the question of sentencing.  The absence of  

any guidelines makes the task of the court more difficult and casts a  

heavy responsibility on it to calibrate the due punishment that might  

be awarded to a convict,  taking into consideration all  the relevant  

facts and circumstances.  It is, however, regrettable that the courts  

hardly  give  the  question  of  sentencing  as  much  attention  and  

application of mind as it deserves.  The present is a case in point.  

As seen above, both the accused, the wife and the husband have  

been found guilty of cheating and both of them have been given the  

same punishment,  i.e.,  imprisonment  for  two  years  and  a  fine  of  

Rs.2,000/-.  Though, both the accused, the wife and the husband are  

convicted for the same offence, it  does not necessarily follow that  1 (1977)4 SCC 44

3

Page 4

they should be punished in the same way. What seems to have been  

overlooked is their relative role in the commission of the offence.  

From the prosecution case and the evidence of  

witnesses it is evident that the primary role in the commission of the  

offence was of Ginder Singh, the husband, and the wife (the present  

appellant) had only a subsidiary role. It also needs to be kept in mind  

that she is a woman.  In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellant  

deserves a lesser punishment than the other accused, her husband  

who played the main role in the commission of the offence.  

In light of the discussion made above, we are of  

the view that a sentence of one year imprisonment to the appellant  

would meet the ends of justice.  We, accordingly, modify and reduce  

her sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year leaving the  

fine undisturbed.  

The appeal  is  allowed to  the limited extent,  as  

indicated above.  

…….,….…………...................J           (Aftab Alam)

……………………..................J                                                     (Ranjana Prakash Desai) New Delhi; November 26, 2012.

4