STATE OF M.P. Vs UDAIBHAN
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000182-000182 / 2016
Diary number: 29028 / 2012
Advocates: C. D. SINGH Vs
AMLAN KUMAR GHOSH
Page 1
Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.8006 of 2012 etc.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2016 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8006 of 2012]
State of M.P. …..Appellant
Versus
Udaibhan …..Respondent
W I T H
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 183 OF 2016 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8011 of 2012]
State of M.P. …..Appellant
Versus
Hakim Singh & Anr. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred by State of
Madhya Pradesh against common judgment and order dated 14.12.2011
passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.92/2002 and 106/2002.
2. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has partly
allowed criminal appeals preferred by the three accused, namely,
Rajaram, Udaibhan and Hakim Singh, respondents in these appeals so
1
Page 2
Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.8006 of 2012 etc.
as to convert their conviction under Section 307 of IPC for Rajaram and
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the other two
appellants into one under Section 326 for Rajaram and 326/34 for the
other two. The High Court did not interfere with the fine imposed on the
respondents for the offence noted above as well as for the offence under
Section 323 IPC but reduced the sentence for imprisonment which was
R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 as well as
Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC to a period already
undergone by the respondents which was of one year and nine months
only.
3. Since the High Court did not disbelieve the substratum of the
prosecution case and has maintained the conviction of respondents,
albeit for an offence minor to one under Section 307 or Section 307 read
with Section 34 of IPC, the only material issue worth consideration in
these appeals is whether the High Court in the matter of awarding of
punishment has ignored the relevant considerations and adopted an
erroneous approach. The High Court accepted the contention advanced
on behalf of the accused that the evidence on record did not establish
any intention on the part of the accused persons to kill the complainant
or his brother, the two injured in this case. The High Court did not
doubt nor did the accused persons raise any contention that the injury
sustained by the complainant on head was not a grievous injury. Being
an incised wound on temporal region of the head, it was clearly caused
2
Page 3
Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.8006 of 2012 etc.
by a sharp cutting weapon and dangerous to life. The doctor held the
aforesaid injury no.1 on the head to be grievous on the basis of X-ray
which showed fracture of the skull bone.
4. The High Court in our considered opinion failed to keep under
focus various relevant factors for a proper decision on the quantum of
sentence which should have been imposed even for the altered conviction
under Section 326 or Section 326/34 of the IPC. The prosecution case
which has been accepted as true disclosed that the complainant
Kriparam was called to Panchayat Bhawan where the accused persons
were already present with weapons. Rajaram was having farsa whereas
Hakim was armed with an iron rod and Udaibhan with lathi. As soon as
the complainant arrived he was threatened and assaulted by all the three
with their respective weapons. Rajaram caused a farsa injury on the
head, Hakim caused an injury with iron bar on the eyebrow near the
right eye. Udaibhan gave more than one lathi blows. When
complainant’s brother Prabhu came for his rescue then he was also
assaulted with lathi blows by Udaibhan.
5. The High Court did not even note down the six injuries on the
complainant which included a grievous injury on the temporal part, a
reddish blue mark on the upper side of right eye, another injury having
blue mark on the forehead and another wound on the eyebrow on the
right eye. There was hardly any mitigating circumstance to take such a
lenient view as has been done by the High Court. The law on the
3
Page 4
Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.8006 of 2012 etc.
principles governing proper sentencing has been elaborated by this Court
in large number of cases. It is the duty of the Court awarding sentence
to ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency in
awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the
necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not
re-assure the society that the offender has been properly dealt with. It is
not a very healthy situation to leave the injured and complainant side
thoroughly dissatisfied with a very lenient punishment to the accused.
In the present case the order of punishment imposed by the High Court
suffers from the vice of being over-lenient even in absence of any
mitigating circumstance.
6. In such a situation, the interest of justice requires interference
with the punishment imposed by the High Court. The ends of justice
would be satisfied by imposing on all the three accused persons a
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years in place of period
already undergone, for the offence under Section 326 as well as Section
326/34 of the IPC. The other sentence which has been maintained by
the High Court is left intact. However, it is clarified that sentence of
imprisonment for different offences against the respondents shall run
concurrently. The impugned judgment and order are modified
accordingly. The Trial Court shall take all necessary steps to ensure that
the respondents are taken into custody forthwith to serve out the
remainder period of imprisonment in connection with Sessions Case No.
4
Page 5
Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.8006 of 2012 etc.
16/2001, tried by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (Madhya
Pradesh). The appeals preferred by the State are allowed to the aforesaid
extent only.
…………………………………….J. [DIPAK MISRA]
……………………………………..J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi. March 01, 2016.
5