Page 1

REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1049-1050 OF 2015

(@ SLP(Crl) Nos. 4099-4100 of 2015)

Raj Bala  ... Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. Etc. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

1. In  Gopal  Singh  v.  State  of  Uttrakahand1,  while

focusing  on  the  gravity  of  the  crime  and  the  concept  of

proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had

observed:-

“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.

1  (2013) 7 SCC 545

Page 2

The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment  should  not  be  disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of  the  convict  to  become  a  criminal  in  future, capability  of  his  reformation  and  to  lead  an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect —  propensity  to  become  a  social  threat  or nuisance,  and  sometimes  lapse  of  time  in  the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the  nature  of  the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability  of  the  doctrine  of  bringing  the convict  to  the  value-based  social  mainstream may  be  the  guiding  factors.  Needless  to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner. We may hasten to  add that  there  can neither  be  a  straitjacket formula  nor  a  solvable  theory  in  mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the  case  and  rationalised  judicial  discretion. Neither the personal  perception of  a  Judge nor self-adhered  moralistic  vision  nor  hypothetical apprehensions  should  be  allowed  to  have  any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of.  Similarly,  an offender cannot  be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the  crime  has  been  committed  and  other concomitant  factors  which  we  have  indicated hereinbefore  and  also  have  been  stated  in  a number  of  pronouncements  by  this  Court.  On such  touchstone,  the  sentences  are  to  be imposed.  The  discretion  should  not  be  in  the realm  of  fancy.  It  should  be  embedded  in  the conceptual essence of just punishment.”

[Emphasis added]

2

Page 3

2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v.

State of Gujarat2, it has been held 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

2  (2006) 2 SCC 359

3

Page 4

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.  This  position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.3”

[Emphasis supplied]

And again:-

“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 the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting  public  abhorrence  and  it  should “respond to the society’s  cry  for  justice against the criminal”.”

3. It needs no special emphasis to state that prior to the

said decision, there are series of  judgments of  this Court

emphasizing on appropriate sentencing.  Despite authorities

existing and governing the field, it has come to the notice of

this Court that sometimes the court of first instance as well

as the appellate court which includes the High Court, either

on  individual  notion  or  misplaced  sympathy  or  personal

3  (1991) 3 SCC 471

4

Page 5

perception seems to have been carried away by passion of

mercy,  being  totally  oblivious  of  lawful  obligation  to  the

collective as mandated by law and forgetting the oft-quoted

saying of Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo “Justice, though due

to the accused,  is  due to the accuser  too”  and follow an

extremely liberal sentencing policy which has neither legal

permissibility nor social acceptability.   

4. We have commenced the judgment with the aforesaid

pronouncements, and our anguished observations, for the

present case, in essentiality, depicts an exercise of judicial

discretion to be completely moving away from the objective

parameters of  law which clearly  postulate  that  the prime

objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just

and proportionate punishment which is commensurate with

the gravity, nature of the crime and manner in which the

offence is  committed keeping in mind  the social  interest

and the conscience of the society, as has been laid down in

State of M.P. v. Babu Lal4,  State of M.P. v. Surendra

Singh5 and State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh6.  

4  (2014) 9 SCC 281 5  (2015) 1 SCC 222 6  (2015) 3 SCC 441

5

Page 6

5. We sadly and indubitably with a pang proceed to pen

the narrative.  The respondent nos. 2 to 4 stood trial for the

offence  punishable  under  Section  306  IPC.   Be  it  noted,

initially the FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC but

during investigation, the investigating agency had converted

the offence to one under Section 306 IPC.  The charge was

framed in respect of the offence under Section 306 IPC and

the plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial.

The allegations against the accused persons were that on

23.10.2000, when ASI Daya Nand along with other police

officials  were  patrolling  at  Qumaspur,  informant  Dharam

Singh met him and stated that he is a resident of Village

Qumaspur and working as Peon in the office of the Public

Works Department (B&R), Sub Division No.4, Engineering

College, Murthal and on that day about 1.00 p.m., Joginder,

son  of  Dariyao  Singh  had  informed  the  informant  on

telephone  that  his  eldest  son  Krishan  Kumar,  aged  19

years,  had  died.   After  receipt  of  the  information,  the

informant along with JE Sushil Kumar, JE Nafe Singh and

SDC Ramesh Kumar went to his house at village Qumaspur

where he found his son was lying dead on a cot.  On queries

6

Page 7

made  about  death  of  his  son,  Ishwar  Singh  S/o.  Hari

Chand, Chet Ram s/o. Mir Singh, Shanti w/o Karan Singh

and Ganga Die w/o. Mir Singh told the informant that on

the same day at about 12.30 p.m., accused Satbir, Rajesh

and Mukesh first gave severe beatings to his son and after

that they brought him to his house and hanged him and

thereafter left for their respective homes.  It was also stated

by  the  informant  that  Dariya  s/o.  Lakhi,  Sandeep  s/o.

Rajender Singh and Rinku s/o.  Bijender after tearing the

rope removed the deceased Krishan from the hand and put

him  on  the  cot.   On  the  basis  of  the  statement  of  the

informant,  the  criminal  law  was  set  in  motion  and

investigation commenced.  After completion of investigation,

charge sheet was placed under Section 306 IPC before the

competent court which in turn committed the matter to the

Court of Session.

6. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined

as many as 16 witnesses.  The learned trial Judge on the

basis of the material brought on record found the accused

persons guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306

IPC.  It is pertinent to state here that the learned trial Judge

7

Page 8

posed the question whether the deceased committed suicide

by  hanging  himself  with  a  rope  or  the  accused  persons

hanged him to the rope which resulted in his death.  He

took note of the fact that initially the case was registered

under Section 302 IPC but during investigation the police

had  found  that  the  deceased  had  teased  one  Seema,

daughter  of  the  accused Satbir,  and that  is  why he  was

assaulted at the spot and thereafter they brought him to his

house.   The trial  court found that there was evidence on

record that Seema was teased by the deceased while she

was in her house and at that time she has raised an alarm

which attracted the attention of the other witnesses and due

to the said incident  he was assaulted,  and he eventually

committed suicide.  The trial court has recorded a finding

that on being injured there was apprehension in the mind of

the deceased of further maltreatment and harassment at the

hands of the accused, and that led him to commit suicide

by hanging himself with a rope inside his house and thus,

he  was  found  in  a  hanging  condition.   Analysing  the

evidence  the  trial  court  found  that  the  charge  leveled

8

Page 9

against the accused had been proved and accordingly found

them guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC.  

7. After  determining  the  guilt,  while  imposing  the

sentence, the learned trial Judge has held that:-

“As  per  record,  all  the  convicts  are  the  first offender and they also belong to a weaker section of the society.  While it has also come on record that the deceased had teased Seema, daughter of accused Satbir Singh.  As such, all of them have committed an offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian  Penal  Code.   So,  keeping  in  view  the nature of the offence and other circumstances of the case and in order to meet the ends of justice, I think that a lenient view is required to be taken on the quantum of sentence. So, I  sentence all the  three  convicts  to  undergo  rigorous imprisonment  for  a  period  of  three  years  each with  a  fine  of  Rs.3,000/-  (Rs.  Three  thousand only) each and in default of payment thereof to undergo R.I. for six months. ”  

8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and

order  of  sentence,  the  respondents  preferred  a  criminal

appeal before the High Court which affirmed the conviction.

It  is  necessary  to  mention  here  that  the  informant  had

preferred a criminal revision for conversion of the criminal

offence but the same did not find favour with the High Court

and accordingly it dismissed the same.  

9

Page 10

9. As far as the criminal appeal is concerned, the High

Court gave the stamp of approval to the conviction but as

regards the sentence, it held thus:-

“As  regards  the  quantum  of  sentence  of imprisonment,  this  Court,  hereby,  refers  to  the jail custody certificates, as per which each of the appellants has undergone a period of 4 months and 20 days.  They are not found to be involved in any other criminal case.  

In view of the totality of the circumstances, this Court  is  of  the  considered  view that  no  useful purpose will be served by sending the appellants back  to  jail  for  remaining  sentences  of imprisonment.  Ends of justice would be amply met  if  their  substantive  sentences  of imprisonment  are  reduced  to  the  one  already undergone by them.  

10. The reduction of sentence is the primary grievance in

one  of  the  appeals  herein.   As  far  as  the  dismissal  of

revision  petition  by  the  High  Court  is  concerned,  no

infirmity  is  perceived,  for  there  could  neither  have  been

conversion  of  the  offence  nor  enhancement  of  sentence.

Thus, we restrict our delineation as regards the reduction of

sentence by the High Court while dealing with the Criminal

Appeal  No.  1460  of  2004  arising  out  of  judgment  of

conviction  and  order  of  sentence  passed  by  the  learned

10

Page 11

Additional  Sessions Judge,  Sonepat  in Sessions Case No.

161 of 2003.  

11. Analysed  on  the  touchstone  of  aforesaid  principles

stated  and  reiterated  by  this  Court,  as  regards  the

imposition of  sentence,  it  is  really  unfathomable how the

High  Court  could  have  observed  that  no  useful  purpose

would be serve by sending the accused persons to jail for

undergoing their remaining sentences of imprisonment, for

the  High  Court  itself  has  recorded  that  the  appellants

therein had remained in custody only for a period of four

months  and  twenty  days.   Section  306  IPC  deals  with

abetment  of  suicide  and  further  stipulates  that  whoever

abets in the crime would be punished with imprisonment

for either description for a term which may extend to ten

years and shall also be liable to fine.  The two ingredients

are essential to prove the offence, that is, the death should

be suicidal in nature and there must be abetment thereof.

The learned trial Judge has arrived at the conclusion that

the respondents had committed the offence under Section

306 IPC.  He has applied the test that the accused persons

are  first  offenders  and  belong  to  weaker  section  of  the

11

Page 12

society.  Another mitigating fact that has been recorded is

that daughter of the accused Satbir Singh was teased.  He

has  also  mentioned  the  nature  of  the  offence  and  other

circumstances of the case.  It is also not discernible how the

principle of “first offender” would come into play in such a

case.  Once the offence under Section 306 IPC is proved,

there  should  have  been  adequate  and  appropriate

punishment.  The learned trial Judge has, on the basis of

the  appreciation  of  the  evidence  on  record,  come  to  the

conclusion  that  the  deceased  was  assaulted  and  being

apprehensive of further torture, he committed suicide.  The

mitigating  factors  which  have  been  highlighted  by  the

learned  trial  Judge  are  absolutely  non-mitigating  factors

and,  in  a  way,  totally  inconsequential  for  imposing  a

sentence of three years.  The approach of the High Court, as

the  reasoning  would show,  reflects  more of  a  casual  and

fanciful one rather than just one.  A Court, while imposing

sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of the

society.   The  legislature  in  its  wisdom  has  conferred

discretion on the Court but the duty of the court in such a

situation  becomes more  difficult  and complex.   It  has  to

12

Page 13

exercise  the  discretion  on  reasonable  and  rational

parameters.  The discretion cannot be allowed to yield to

fancy  or  notion.   A  Judge  has  to  keep  in  mind  the

paramount concept of rule of law and the conscience of the

collective and balance it with the principle of proportionality

but when the discretion is exercised in a capricious manner,

it  tantamounts  to  relinquishment  of  duty  and  reckless

abandonment of responsibility.  One cannot remain a total

alien  to  the  demand  of  the  socio-cultural  milieu  regard

being had to the command of law and also brush aside the

agony of the victim or the survivors of the victim.   Society

waits with patience to see that justice is done.  There is a

hope  on  the  part  of  the  society  and  when  the  criminal

culpability is established and the discretion is irrationally

exercised by the court, the said hope is shattered and the

patience  is  wrecked.   It  is  the  duty  of  the  court  not  to

exercise the discretion in such a manner as a consequence

of which the expectation inherent in patience, which is the

“finest part of fortitude” is destroyed.  A Judge should never

feel  that  the  individuals  who  constitute  the  society  as  a

whole  is  imperceptible  to  the  exercise  of  discretion.   He

13

Page 14

should always bear in mind that erroneous and fallacious

exercise of discretion is perceived by a visible collective.   

12. In the instant case, we are constrained to say that the

learned Single Judge while dealing with the appeal preferred

by  the  respondents  has  remained  quite  unmindful  and

unconcerned to the obvious and, therefore, the reduction of

sentence by the High Court to the period already undergone

is set aside and the sentence imposed by the learned trial

Judge is restored.   

13. We may hasten to add though we have commented on

the approach of the learned trial Judge, we cannot change

the scenario in the absence of any appeal either by the State

or the persons aggrieved in that regard.  Though a revision

preferred by the informant has been dismissed by the High

Court,  the  same  did  not  pertain  to  the  challenge  to  the

quantum of sentence as it could not have.   

14. Consequently,  the appeal,  as far  as the challenge to

the reduction of sentence by the High Court is concerned, is

allowed  and  the  judgment  of  conviction  and  order  of

sentence  by  the  trial  Judge  is  restored.   The  appeal

challenging  the  order  passed in the  revision by  the  High

14

Page 15

Court is dismissed.  The respondent nos. 2 to 4 be taken

into  custody  forthwith  to  undergo  the  remaining  part  of

their sentences.  

...............................J. [Dipak Misra]

...............................J.       [Prafulla C. Pant]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 18, 2015.

15