Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 931   Of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1839 of 2012)

RAVINDER SINGH      .. Appellant Versus

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.   ..Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932/2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7101/2012)

RAMESH @ RAVINDER PARDEEP & ORS.             ..Appellants Versus

STATE OF HARYANA               ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Delay  condoned  and  leave  granted  in  both  the

special leave petitions.

2. These appeals arise out of the impugned judgment

dated 16.08.2010 passed by the  High Court  of  Punjab and

1

Page 2

Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.514-SB/1998

whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal  filed by the

respondents-accused directing the reduction of sentence of the

accused  persons  under  Section  304  Part  II  IPC  read  with

Section 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC to the period already

undergone  and  further  directing  the  accused  Pyare  Lal  @

Hitender Pradeep and Manphool to deposit Rs.1,25,000/- each

and directing other accused persons to deposit an amount of

Rs.25,000/- each with the trial court with default clause and

directing  the  trial  court  to  disburse  the  said  amount  of

compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased-Duli Chand.

3. Brief facts which led to the filing of these appeals

are as under:- On 04.08.1993 complainant-Sher Singh (PW6)

along with his elder brother Duli Chand were returning from

Bus adda of  village Devsar  towards their  house.  No Sooner

they reached the tyre puncture shop owned by Rajpal,  they

saw these accused persons–respondents, namely, Pyare Lal @

Hitender Pradeep (A-4) armed with lathi, Ramesh @ Ravinder

Pardeep  (A-1)  armed  with  a  jailly  and  Surender  (A-2),  Raj

Kumar  (A-3)  and  Manphool  (A-5)  also  armed  with  lathi.

2

Page 3

Fourth accused-Pyare Lal whooped (lalkar) stating that ‘Duli

Chand  should  be  taught  a  lesson  for  making  a  complaint

against  them  before  the  panchayat’  and  the  accused

persons assaulted Duli Chand.  Accused-Pyare Lal @ Hitender

Pradeep  (A-4)  gave  lathi  blow  on  the  head  of  Duli  Chand,

Ramesh inflicted a jailly blow on the right arm of Duli Chand,

Surender (A-2) hit Duli Chand with a lathi on the right hand.

Accused Raj Kumar (A-3) gave a lathi blow on the hands of

Duli Chand.  Narender (A-6) gave a lathi blow on the right leg

of Duli Chand while Manphool (A-5) gave a lathi blow on the

head of  Duli  Chand.  Due to  the attack deceased sustained

grievous injuries and fell  down and all  the accused persons

dragged  him  inside  the  house  of  Bhundu.  On  hearing  the

screaming of the complainant-Sher Singh for help, Jai Singh

and Roshan Lal came to the spot.  Sher Singh (PW6) with the

help of Jai Singh and Roshan Lal (PW7) had taken Duli Chand

to General Hospital, Bhiwani. Duli Chand remained in coma

and succumbed to injuries on 09.08.1993. On the basis of the

complaint lodged by complainant-Sher Singh, FIR No.277 was

registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 342

3

Page 4

IPC.  On  the  death  of  Duli  Chand,  the  FIR  was  altered  to

Section  304  Part  II  IPC.  On  completion  of  investigation,

chargesheet was filed against the accused persons.  

4. The  charges  were  framed  against  all  the  accused

persons  under  Sections  148  and  302/149  IPC  and  all  the

accused  pleaded  not  guilty.  Upon  consideration  of  the

evidence  adduced  by  the  prosecution,  the  trial  court  vide

judgment  dated  11.06.1998  convicted  all  the  six  accused

persons under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 149

IPC  and  sentenced  each  of  them  to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment for a period of seven years. The accused were

also convicted under Section 148 IPC and were sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.  Being aggrieved

by  the  judgment  passed  by  the  Sessions  Court,  accused

persons  filed  Criminal  Appeal  No.514-SB/1998  before  the

High Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana at  Chandigarh wherein

vide  impugned  judgment  dated  16.08.2010,  High  Court

reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed on all the six

accused  persons  under  Section  304  Part  II  IPC  read  with

Section 149 IPC and 148 IPC to the period already undergone

4

Page 5

by  each  of  them  and  also  imposed  fine  as  indicated  in

paragraph 2.  Being aggrieved by the reduction of sentence,

the appellant Ravinder Singh son of the deceased-Duli Chand

has preferred criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1839

of 2012 assailing the correctness of the impugned judgment.

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant-Ravinder  Singh

contended that the injuries caused by the accused resulting in

the death of  Duli  Chand have been well  established by the

prosecution and the penal liability cannot be substituted by

payment of compensation. It was submitted that having regard

to  the  manner  of  attack  and  the  injuries,  the

respondents-accused do not deserve any mercy and the High

Court  has  erred  in  showing  undue  sympathy  in  reducing

sentence to the period already undergone.   

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents-accused

submitted that accused Narender (A-6),  Raj Kumar (A-3) were

the students and Pyare Lal (A-4) was a police personnel and

Manphool  (A-5-since  dead)  was  aged  about  72  years  and

having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, High

Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone

5

Page 6

and it cannot be said to be an erroneous exercise of discretion

warranting interference in exercising jurisdiction under Article

136 of the Constitution of  India.

7. We have heard the rival  contentions advanced by

the  parties  and  gave  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the

evidence and material on record.

8. The evidence adduced by the prosecution that the

respondents-accused  inflicted  injuries  on  the  deceased-Duli

Chand  which  caused  his  death  and  conviction  of  the

respondents-accused  is  unassailable.  The  only  point  to  be

considered  is  whether  there  was  improper  exercise  of

discretion  by  the  High  Court  in  reducing  the  substantive

sentence to  the period already undergone and directing the

accused to pay the amount of compensation is correct.

9. Question  of  sentence  is  always  a  difficult  task

requiring balancing of various considerations.  The question of

awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on

consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in

the individual cases.  Law courts have been consistent in the

approach that a reasonable proportion has to be maintained

6

Page 7

between the  seriousness  of  the  crime and the  punishment.

While it is true that sentence disproportionately severe should

not be passed that does not clothe the court with an option to

award the sentence manifestly inadequate. Justice demands

that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so

that  the  courts  reflect  public  abhorrence  of  the  crime.   In

State of Karnataka vs. Krishnappa, (2000) 4 SCC 75, this

Court held thus:

“…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. Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years, as in this  case,  and  respond  by  imposition  of  proper  sentence.  Public abhorrence  of  the  crime  needs  reflection  through  imposition  of appropriate  sentence  by  the  court.  There  are  no  extenuating  or mitigating  circumstances  available  on  the  record  which  may  justify imposition of any sentence less than the prescribed minimum on the respondent. To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. The High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial court and  our  answer  to  the  question  posed  in  the  earlier  part  of  the judgment is an emphatic — No…”

10. Considering  the  facts  of  the  present  case  as

submitted  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  two

accused namely Raj Kumar (A-3) and Narender (A-6) were the

students at the time of the incident while Manphool (A-5) has

crossed the age of 72 years.  The occurrence was in the year

1993 and more than 22 years have elapsed from the date of

7

Page 8

the incident.  For the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC

read with Section 149 IPC reduction of sentence from seven

years to the period already undergone, though, appears to be

inadequate, at this distant point of time, we are not inclined to

interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court in

reducing the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to the

period already undergone by each of the accused.  As far as

the award of compensation is concerned, particularly in the

case of homicidal death, monetary benefits cannot be equated

with  the  life  of  a  person  and  the  society’s  cry  for  justice.

Object  is  just  to  mitigate  hardship  that  is  caused  to  the

deceased.   

11. In  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case

considering the plight of deceased family, the fine amount of

Rs.25,000/-  imposed  on  each  of  the  accused  Ramesh  @

Ravinder  Pardeep  (A-1),  Surender  (A-2),  Raj  Kumar  (A-3),

Narender (A-6) is increased to Rs.1,25,000/- each.  Apart from

the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- said to have been deposited by

each of the accused 1, 2, 3 and 6, they shall pay an additional

fine  of   Rs.1,00,000/-  each  within  eight  weeks.   Accused

8

Page 9

No.4-Pyare Lal @ Hitender Pradeep shall pay fine amount of

Rs.1,25,000/-  if  he  has  not  so  far  deposited  within  eight

weeks.  In case, the fine amount/enhanced fine amount is not

deposited by the respondents-accused before  the trial  court

within  the  time  stipulated,  then  they  shall  undergo  the

substantive sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the trial

court.  Once  the  aforesaid  amount  is  deposited  by  the

respondents accused, the trial court shall disburse the same

to the legal representatives of Duli Chand. Accused Manphool

(A-5) died during the proceedings. If he had already paid the

fine  amount,  the  same shall  also  be  disbursed to  the  legal

heirs of Duli Chand.  Since this order is passed in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, this may not be treated

as a precedent.  The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7101 of 2012 is

disposed of in the same terms.

.…………....……………J. (T.S. THAKUR)

………….……………….J.    (R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi; July 15, 2015

9