Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2015 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 5382 of 2014)

State of Punjab …..Appellant

versus

Bawa Singh …..Respondent

JUDGMENT

M. Y. EQBAL, J.  

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed  against  the  

judgment  dated  11.11.2013  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Punjab and Haryana in Crl. Rev. No. 1789 of 2013 whereby  

the High Court upheld the conviction of the respondent but  

1

Page 2

reduced  the  period  of  sentence  to  the  period  already  

undergone.

3. The facts of the case in brief  are that a FIR No. 151  

dated 31.10.2004 was lodged against the respondent Bawa  

Singh and his wife Labh Kaur. The complainant Binder Singh  

alleged that on 30.10.2004 while he was going on his tractor  

to his fields he saw the respondent with a cycle and carrying  

a gandasa accompanied by his wife Labh Kaur whereupon he  

stopped  his  tractor.  The  respondent  and  his  wife  were  

alleged  to  have  said  that  the  complainant  needed  to  be  

taught a lesson and allegedly hit the complainant with the  

gandasa.  The  cries  of  the  complainant  alerted  his  father  

Jangir Singh and his brother Hardev Singh who rushed to the  

spot whereupon the respondent and his wife fled abandoning  

the cycle. The complainant alleged that there was a property  

dispute between the parties. The complainant was admitted  

to a hospital and his statement was taken only on the next  

day i.e. 31.10.2004 on him being declared fit to do so. The  

2

Page 3

site plan was prepared. The cycle was recovered from the  

spot  and the gandasa  was recovered on  the basis  of  the  

disclosure  statement  of  the  accused.  The respondent  and  

Labh Kaur were arrested on 07.11.2004 and charges were  

framed against  them under sections 323 and 326 IPC r/w  

section 34 IPC.

4. The  prosecution  examined  PW1  for  proving  personal  

search memo, PW2 Jangir and PW3 Hardev who deposed to  

not  having  seen  the  accused  inflicting  the  injures,  PW4  

Binder/complainant  who  supported  the  prosecution  case,  

PW5 Investigating Officer who proved the possession memo  

of the cycle and gandasa and PW6 Doctor who examined the  

complainant and found few simple injuries and one grievous  

injury on the finger.

5. It was pleaded on behalf of the accused that the cycle  

allegedly left behind had not been produced. It was alleged  

that the depositions of PW 2 and 3 could not be relied upon  

3

Page 4

as  they  were  not  eye  witnesses  and  were  interested  

witnesses and that the injuries on the complainant or the  

admitted injuries on the accused were not explained. It was  

also alleged that there was an unexplained delay in lodging  

the FIR.

6. The trial court held that the statements of PW-2 Jangir  

and  PW-3  Hardev  were  relevant  and  not  merely  hearsay  

evidence and that their statements would not be unreliable  

merely because they were relatives. The delay in filing the  

FIR was held to be explained as the complainant was proven  

to be unfit to make the statement on the day of the incident.  

The court further noted that though the accused claimed to  

have been injured, they had not filed a complaint or put any  

suggestion regarding the same to the prosecution witness.  

The injuries on the accused were simple in nature.  It  was  

held that non-production of the cycle or the blood soaked  

soil was not fatal to the prosecution case. The court held that  

the conduct of the accused in travelling one kilometer from  

4

Page 5

their house armed with a gandasa and inflicting injuries on  

the complainant proved their common intention and that the  

medical  evidence  proved  that  the  injuries  inflicted  were  

simple and in one instance grievous in nature. The trial court  

convicted  the  respondent  and  sentenced  him  to  rigorous  

imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- for offence  

punishable  under  section  326,  IPC  and  rigorous  

imprisonment  for  1  year  with  fine  of  Rs.500/-  for  offence  

punishable  under  section  323  IPC.  Labh  Kaur  was  also  

convicted under sections 326 and 323 IPC r/w section 34 IPC  

and awarded the same sentence.  

7. Aggrieved  by  the  judgment  of  the  trial  court,  the  

respondent  and his  wife  preferred appeal  to  the Sessions  

Court,  which  noted that  there  was  documentary  evidence  

proving that the accused and the complainant were treated  

by  the  same doctor.  The presence of  the  accused at  the  

crime spot was thereby held to be proven. Labh Kaur had no  

injuries on her person and the six injuries on the respondent  

5

Page 6

were  held  to  be  simple  and  its  non-explanation  was,  

therefore, held to be not fatal to the prosecution case. The  

Sessions Judge held that though PW-2 and PW-3 reached the  

spot  afterwards,  the  statement  of  the  complainant  was  

enough to conclude that it was the accused who inflicted the  

injuries. The Sessions Judge, however, held that the finger  

injury was erroneously held to have been grievous as the  

radiologist who conducted the X-Ray of the said injury and  

whose report was relied upon by PW-6 to hold the injury as  

grievous, was not examined.  The Sessions Court set aside  

the  conviction  of  the  accused  under  section  326  IPC  but  

upheld  their  conviction  under  section  323  IPC  upholding  

other  findings of  the trial  court.   The Sessions Judge also  

noted that Labh Kaur was an old lady, who herself had not  

caused any injury to the complainant and was a first time  

offender  and  released  her  on  probation  on  a  bond  of  

Rs.20,000/- after setting aside her sentence of imprisonment  

with  fine.  The  respondent  was  however  sentenced  to  

imprisonment of one and half years with fine of Rs.1000/-.  

6

Page 7

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the  

respondent  preferred  revision  before  the  High  Court.  The  

respondent  did  not  challenge  the  order  of  conviction  but  

sought reduction of the sentence awarded to the period of  

imprisonment  already  undergone  by  him.  The  High  Court  

noted that the respondent had been in jail for 4 months with  

remission of  15 days and that  the incident took place on  

30.10.2004 resulting in a trial for 9 years and granted the  

prayer of the respondent subject to payment of Rs.20,000/-  

to the complainant within two months. The revision petition  

was disposed off accordingly vide the impugned judgment  

reducing  the  sentence  of  the  accused-respondent  to  the  

period  already  undergone.  Hence,  the  present  appeal  by  

special leave by the State.   

9. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  

appearing  on  either  side  and  perused  the  papers  placed  

before us.   

7

Page 8

10. We are of the opinion that,  in the instant case, after  

proper appreciation of evidence the trial court as well as the  

Sessions  Court  rightly  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  

accused-respondent is not entitled for benefit  to probation  

since he caused injuries on the person of the complainant  

with Gandasa and dispute between the parties was already  

pending.  We are further of the opinion 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  

has  taken  lenient  stand,  if  not  casual  and  shown  undue  

sympathy by modifying the conviction to the period already  

undergone.   

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

the  impugned  order  has  completely  failed  to  follow  the  

8

Page 9

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 manner  in  which it  was committed.  (See  

Sevaka Perumal  vs.  State of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC  

471).  

12. 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  

9

Page 10

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  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.”

13. 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  

10

Page 11

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. ….”

14. 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  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  

11

Page 12

Court  has  repeatedly  stressed  the  central  role  of  

proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.

15. 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  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  

12

Page 13

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.”

16. 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.

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.”

13

Page 14

17. 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 without considering the degree of the offence  

will  be counter-productive in the long run and against the  

interest of the society.

18. Recently, in the cases of  State of Madhya Pradesh  

vs.  Bablu,  (2014)  9  SCC  281  and  State  of  Madhya  

14

Page 15

Pradesh vs. Surendra Singh, 2014 (12) SCALE 672, 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.

19.  Perusal  of  the  impugned  order  passed  by  the  High  

Court would show that while reducing the sentence to the  

period already undergone, the High Court has not considered  

the law time and again laid down by this Court.  Hence the  

15

Page 16

impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and  

the matter is remanded back to the High Court to pass a  

fresh order in the revision petition taking into consideration  

the law discussed hereinabove after giving an opportunity of  

hearing to the parties.   The appeal  is  accordingly allowed  

with the aforesaid direction.

…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………….J. (Kurian Joseph)

New Delhi, January 15, 2015.

16