Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2401  OF 2014 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5947 of 2013)

State of Madhya Pradesh   ….Appellant(s)

Versus

Surendra Singh …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.Y. EQBAL, J.

1.  Leave granted.

2. State  of  Madhya Pradesh has preferred this  appeal  by  

special leave against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2012  

passed  by  learned  Single  Judge  of  High  Court  of  Madhya  

Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, who allowed the appeal, preferred  

by the respondent-accused, in part maintaining his conviction  

but reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court to the  

period  already  undergone  subject  to  depositing  further  

compensation  of  Rs.2,000/-  to  the  widow/mother  of  the  

deceased.

1

Page 2

3. The prosecution case,  in  brief,  is  that  on 11.5.1998 a  

ward  boy  of  Sabalgarh  Hospital  lodged  a  written  report  at  

Sabalgarh police station to the effect that one Vijay Singh of  

village  Mangroli  died  in  accident  caused  by  a  jeep  bearing  

registration no.SP 7H 6045.  Thereafter, case was investigated  

and  challan  was  filed  against  the  respondent-accused,  who  

was driver of the jeep and the accident occurred due to his  

rash  and  negligent  driving.   After  completion  of  trial,  the  

Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class,  Sabalgarh  convicted  the  

respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections  

279, 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him  

to undergo six months and two years rigorous imprisonment  

respectively with fine of Rs.2,500/-.  Aggrieved by the order of  

conviction passed by the trial court, respondent filed appeal  

before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, who upheld  

the order of conviction passed by the trial court.   

2

Page 3

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the respondent-

accused moved the High Court in revision.  Learned counsel  

for the respondent assailed the order and in the alternative  

submitted before the High Court that the accused, who is a  

poor  person,  has  already  served  substantive  part  of  jail  

sentence and prayed that his sentence may be reduced to the  

period  already  undergone  and  the  amount  of  fine  may  

reasonably  be  enhanced.  Learned  counsel  for  the  State  

objected and submitted that revisional jurisdiction of the High  

Court  is  limited  and  no  interference  is  called  for  in  the  

concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.  The High  

Court  partly  allowed  revision  petition  of  the  accused  

maintaining  findings  of  conviction  of  the  accused  with  the  

modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded to the  

accused is reduced to the period already undergone subject to  

depositing further compensation of Rs.2,000/-  payable to the  

widow/mother of the deceased Vijay Singh.

3

Page 4

5. Dissatisfied with the order  of  the High Court,  State  of  

Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal contending that the  

High Court has limited revisional jurisdiction and ought not to  

have  interfered  with  the  concurrent  findings  of  the  courts  

below.  It is further contended that High Court has erred in  

passing impugned order of partly allowing the revision petition  

of the accused without taking into consideration the gravity of  

the  act  committed by the respondent,  whereby an innocent  

man lost his life due to negligence of the respondent.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties appearing  

on either side.

7. In the instant case, after proper appreciation of evidence  

the trial court came to the conclusion that the accused had  

endangered the life  of  Vijay by driving the jeep on a public  

road in a rash and negligent manner.  The accused dashed the  

jeep against a pulia first and then against a Babul tree.  As a  

result of such accident Vijay Singh, who was travelling in the  

jeep got injured and died, and another person Mangilal, who  

was also in the jeep, received injuries.  We are of the opinion  

4

Page 5

that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing  

the  order  of  conviction  and  in  the  appeal  preferred  by  the  

accused findings of  the trial  court were affirmed.  However,  

without proper appreciation of the evidence and consideration  

of  gravity  of  the  offence,  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  

Court shown undue sympathy by modifying the conviction to  

the period already undergone.

8. In our considered opinion, the High Court while passing  

the  impugned  order  has  completely  failed  to  follow  the  

principles  enunciated  by  this  Court  in  catena  of  decisions.  

Undue sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence  

would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the  

public confidence in the efficacy of law and the society cannot  

endure long under serious threats.  If the courts do not protect  

the  injured,  the  injured  would  then  resort  to  personal  

vengeance.  Therefore, the duty of any court is to award proper  

sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the  

5

Page 6

manner in which it was committed. (See Sevaka Perumal  vs.  

State of Tamil Nadu,  (1991) 3 SCC 471)

9. In  the  case  of  Dhananjoy  Chatterjee  @  Dhana  vs.   

State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220, this Court held as  

under:

“In recent years, the rising crime rate-particularly  violent crime against women has made the criminal  sentencing  by  the  courts  a  subject  of  concern.  Today  there  are  admitted  disparities.  Some  criminals  get  very  harsh  sentences  while  many  receive grossly different sentence for an essentially  equivalent  crime  and  a  shockingly  large  number  even  go  unpunished,  thereby  encouraging  the  criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer  by weakening the system's credibility. Of course, it  is not possible to lay down any cut and dry formula  relating to imposition of sentence but the object of  sentencing should be to see that the crime does not  go unpunished and the victim of crime as also the  society  has the satisfaction that  justice  has been  done to it. In imposing sentences, in the absence of  specific legislation, Judges must consider variety of  factors and after considering all those factors and  taking  an  over-all  view  of  the  situation,  impose  sentence which they consider to be an appropriate  one.  Aggravating  factors  cannot  be  ignored  and  similarly mitigating circumstances have also to be  taken into consideration.

In our opinion, the measure of punishment in  a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the  crime;  the  conduct  of  the  criminal  and  the  defenceless  and  unprotected  state  of  the  victim.  Imposition  of  appropriate  punishment  is  the  manner in which the courts respond to the society's  cry  for  justice  against  the  criminals.  Justice  

6

Page 7

demands  that  courts  should  impose  punishment  fitting to the crime so that the courts reflect public  abhorrence of the crime. The courts must not only  keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the  rights of the victim of crime and the society at large  while  considering  imposition  of  appropriate  punishment.”

10. While considering this aspect, the Apex Court in the case  

of Mahesh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1987)  

3 SCC 80, remarked that,

“…it  will  be a mockery of  justice  to permit  these  appellants  to  escape  the  extreme  penalty  of  law  when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts.  To  give  the  lesser  punishment  for  the  appellants  would  be  to  render  the  Justice  system  of  this  country suspect. The common man will lose faith in  courts.  In  such  cases,  he  understands  and  appreciates the language of deterrence more than  the reformative jargon. When we say this, we do not  ignore the need for a reformative approach in the  sentencing process. ….”

11. In the case of Hazara Singh versus Raj Kumar, (2013)  

9 SCC 516, this Court has observed that 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  

7

Page 8

nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of  

proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a  

fair and impartial verdict.  This Court further observed that  

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.

12. In  Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2006)  

2 SCC 359, the Apex Court opined 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  

8

Page 9

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.”

13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in  Ahmed Hussein  

Vali Mohammed Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC  

254, 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 (sic  break the) law by imposing appropriate sentence. It  is  expected  that  the  courts  would  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  meagre  sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on  account of lapse of time in respect of such offences  will be resultwise counterproductive 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.

9

Page 10

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  but  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.”

14. We again reiterate in this case 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  

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.  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.  

Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time  

10

Page 11

without considering the degree of the offence will be counter-

productive  in  the  long  run  and  against  the  interest  of  the  

society.

15. In  a  recent  decision  in  the  case  of  State of  Madhya  

Pradesh vs. Bablu - Criminal Appeal No.1845 of 2014, after  

considering  and  following  the  earlier  decisions,  this  Court  

reiterated the settled proposition of law that one of the prime  

objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just,  

proportionate punishment which commensurate with gravity,  

nature  of  crime  and  the  manner  in  which  the  offence  is  

committed.  One should keep in mind the social interest and  

conscience of the society while considering the determinative  

factor  of  sentence  with  gravity  of  crime.   The  punishment  

should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the  

society.  It is, therefore, solemn duty of the court to strike a  

proper  balance  while  awarding  the  sentence  as  awarding  

lesser sentence encourages any criminal and, as a result of the  

same, the society suffers.

11

Page 12

16. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order  

reducing  sentence  to  the  period  already  undergone  and,  to  

avoid miscarriage of  justice, this appeal is allowed restoring  

the sentence imposed by the trial court.  The respondent is  

directed  to  surrender  within  two  weeks  from  today,  failing  

which, the trial Judge is directed to take appropriate steps for  

sending  him  to  prison  to  undergo  the  remaining  period  of  

sentence.

…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………….J. (Shiva Kirti Singh)

New Delhi, November 13, 2014.

12

Page 13

13