Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.9420/2012)

State of M.P.                                       … Appellant

Versus

Babulal & Ors.                                                       … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned  

judgment and order  dated 14.12.2011 passed by the  

High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  (Gwalior  Bench)  in  

Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2010, by way of which the  

conviction  of  the  respondents  has  been  maintained  

under  Sections  148,  324,  326 and 149 of  the Indian  

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `IPC’) as  

awarded  by  the  learned  trial  court,  however,  the  

sentence has been reduced from 2 years to 3 months.   

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal

Page 2

are that:  

A. One  Sunil  (PW.1)  lodged  a  complaint  with  the  

police  station  Bhander  on  21.3.2004  that  his  father  

Nahar Singh (PW.5) had gone to his agricultural field for  

guarding his crops, all the respondents came there on a  

tractor driven by Kallu, armed with axe, farsa and lathi  

etc.   When  the  complainant  Sunil  tried  to  stop  the  

tractor,  the  respondents  started  abusing  him and  on  

being  asked  not  to  abuse,  the  respondents  caused  

injuries  to  the  complainant  Sunil  (PW.1)  with  their  

respective  weapons.   When  his  father  Nahar  Singh  

(PW.5)  came  to  rescue  him,  the  respondents  had  

beaten  him  of  which  he  suffers  injuries.   In  the  

meanwhile,  on  hearing  hue  and  cry,  brother  of  

complainant,  namely,   Brijraj  (PW.3)  and one Kunwar  

Singh (PW.2) reached the spot and tried to intervene,  

they were also beaten by the respondents.  When other  

persons  namely,  Kalyan  Singh  and  Nirbhay  Singh  

reached the spot, the accused persons fled away from  

there hurling threats to kill the complainant side.   

B. In view of the complaint filed by Sunil (PW.1), the  

2

Page 3

law came into motion.   The police arrested the accused  

persons, weapons etc. were recovered on the basis of  

the disclosure statements made by them, and various  

memos were prepared.   

C. After completing the investigation, the police filed  

chargesheet  against  the  respondents  under  Sections  

147,  148, 149, 294,  323,  324 and 506-B IPC.  On the  

basis thereof, the charges had been framed against the  

respondents/accused  under  Sections  147,  148,  294,  

506 Part 2, 326/149 (two counts), 324/149 (two counts).  

D.  In  order  to  prove  their  case,  the  prosecution  

examined  large  number  of  witnesses.   The  learned  

Magistrate  vide  impugned judgment  and order  dated  

10.9.2009 convicted the respondents for commission of  

the offences punishable under Sections 148,  324/149  

(two  counts)  and  326/149  (two  counts)  of  IPC,  and  

sentenced  them  to  undergo  one-one  year  simple  

imprisonment  with  fine  of  Rs.100-100/-  and  two-two  

years  simple  imprisonment  with  fine  of  Rs.150-150/-  

respectively,  and  in  default  of  payment  of  fine,  to  

further undergo simple imprisonment of 10-10 days.   

3

Page 4

E. Aggrieved, the respondents-accused filed Criminal  

Appeal  No.  74 of  2009 before  the learned Additional  

Sessions Judge (Fast Track),  Datia.   The  said appeal  

was dismissed by order dated 15.1.2010.  

F. The respondents further challenged the said order  

dated 15.1.2010 by filing Criminal Revision No.  74 of  

2010 before the High Court which was disposed of vide  

impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2011.

Hence, this appeal by the State.   

3. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel appearing on  

behalf of the appellant State, has submitted that if the  

criminal proceedings has protracted for 7-1/2 years that  

could not be a ground for reducing the sentence from  

two years to 3 months only by the High Court.  Such a  

reduction of sentence is not justified, particularly, when  

the respondents did not argue their case on merit at all.  

In  case,  the  High  Court  earlier  had  reduced  the  

sentence  in  a  similar  manner  that  cannot  be  a  

precedent as other case is  to be decided on its  own  

merit.  Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the  

4

Page 5

case, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court  

should  be  restored  and  the  order  of  the  High  Court  

requires to be modified to that extent.   

4. On  the  contrary,  Shri  Prashant  Shukla,  learned  

counsel  appearing on behalf  of  the  respondents,  has  

submitted  that  the  respondents  faced  the  criminal  

prosecution  for  a  long  time  and  the  sentence  was  

reduced vide order dated 14.12.2011.  The High Court  

was justified in following the earlier judgment wherein  

under  the  similar  circumstances,  the  sentence  had  

been  reduced as  undergone.   Thus,  the  facts  of  the  

case do not warrant any interference whatsoever in the  

case and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.   

5. We have considered the rival  submissions made  

by  the   learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

parties and perused the records.  

6. Admittedly,  the  respondents  did  not  argue  the  

case on merit.  It was prayed before the High Court that  

as a period of more than 7 years had elapsed when the  

incident had taken place, while upholding the guilt of  

5

Page 6

the  said  accused,  sentence  may  be  reduced  as  

undergone which was about 3 months and amount of  

fine  may  be  imposed.   Such  a  prayer  has  been  

accepted by the High Court.   Even before us learned  

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not  

argued anything on merit and the matter is restricted  

only to the quantum of punishment and nothing else.   

7. Dr. G.L. Verma (PW.7) who had examined the  

victims/injured witnesses in this case proved the  

injuries as under:

Nahar  Singh  (PW.5)  had  suffered  5  injuries  

including an incised wound (fracture) on his right hand  

thumb and an lacerated wound in the middle of his left  

leg.  Brijraj (PW.3)  got 7 injuries including an incised  

wound in the middle of his left leg, and incised wound  

in the right side of his head.  Kunwar Singh (PW.2) was  

found to have 7 injuries including an incised would deep  

to skin on the right side of his B and a lacerated wound  

on  his  left  hip.   Sunil  (PW.1)  was  found  11  injuries  

including an incised wound deep to bone in right side of  

his head, an incised wound deep to bone in left side of  

6

Page 7

his head,  an incised wound in the middle of his head,  

an incised wound deep to bone in the middle of his left  

leg, and a lacerated wound in the right hand thumb and  

an incised wound in the left leg.   

8. In Mahesh & etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh,  

AIR 1987 SC 1346, while dealing with a similar issue,  

this Court held as under:  

“….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 justicing 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……”

9. This Court in  State of Punjab v. Bira Singh &  

Ors., (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 708, has held that at the time  

of  awarding  the  sentence,  the  court  should  not  be  

confused with the principle of adopting the most lenient  

view  and  an  accused  may  not  be  awarded  lesser  

punishment  so  that  there  would  be  deterrence  for  

committing  the  crime  again  and  such  a  view  may  

adversely affect not only the accused but the society as  

a whole.   

10. In  Chinnadurai  v.  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,  AIR  

7

Page 8

1996 SC 546, this Court rejected the plea for reduction  

of sentence in view of a considerable delay and other  

circumstances  observing  that  sentence  has  to  be  

awarded  taking  into  consideration  the  gravity  of  the  

injuries.   

11. In  State of U.P. v.  Shri Kishan, AIR 2005 SC  

1250, this Court has emphasised that just and proper  

sentence should be imposed.  The Court held:

“……  Any liberal  attitude by imposing  meager  sentences  or  taking  too  sympathetic  view  merely  on  account of lapse of time in respect  of such offences will be result-wise  counter  productive in  the  long  run  and  against  societal  interest  which  needs to be cared for and strengthened  by  string  of  deterrence  inbuilt  in  the  sentencing system.  

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 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’.” (Emphasis added)

8

Page 9

12. In  Sadhupati  Nageswara  Rao  v.   State  of  

Andhra  Pradesh, AIR  2012  SC  3242,  this  Court  

observed that  the courts  cannot  take lenient  view in  

awarding sentence on the ground of sympathy or delay  

as the same cannot furnish any ground for reduction of  

sentence.   

13. In  Alister  Anthony  Pareira  v.  State  of  

Maharashtra,  AIR 2012 SC 3802, this Court held as  

under:  

“Sentencing is an important task in the matters of  crime. One of the prime objectives of the crimi- nal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate,  just and proportionate sentence commensurate  with the nature and gravity of  crime and the  manner in which the crime is done. There is no  straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on  proof  of  crime.  The courts  have  evolved certain  principles:  the  twin  objective  of  the  sentencing  policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence  would  meet  the  ends  of  justice  depends  on  the  facts and circumstances of each case and the court  must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive  for the crime, nature of the offence and all other at- tendant circumstances.   

The  principle  of  proportionality  in  sen- tencing a crime-doer is well entrenched in crim- inal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion  between crime and punishment bears most relevant  influence in determination of sentencing the crime- doer. The court has to take into consideration all  aspects including social interest and consciousness  

9

Page 10

of the society for award of appropriate sentence.”  (Emphasis added)

(See also:  State of  Karnataka v.  Krishnappa,  AIR  

2000  SC  1470;  and  Dalbir  Singh  v.  State  of  

Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1677)

14. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhanna v. State of  

West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220, this Court observed:

“…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  the  imposition  of  appropriate  punishment.”

(See  also:  Ravji  @  Ram  Chandra v.  State  of  

Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 787).  

15. In  State of Uttar  Pradesh v.  Sanjay Kumar,  

(2012) 8 SCC 537, this Court examined the issue of  

sentencing policy and came to the conclusion:  

“21. Sentencing policy is a way to guide judicial  discretion in accomplishing particular sentencing.  Generally, two criteria, that is, the seriousness of  the crime and the criminal history of the accused,  are used to prescribe punishment. By introducing  more uniformity and consistency into the sentenc- ing process, the objective of the policy, is to make  it easier to predict sentencing outcomes. Sentenc- ing policies are needed to address concerns in rela- tion  to  unfettered  judicial  discretion  and lack  of  uniform and equal treatment of similarly situated  convicts.  The principle of proportionality, as fol-

10

Page 11

lowed  in  various  judgments  of  this  Court,  pre- scribes  that,  the  punishments  should  reflect  the  gravity of the offence and also the criminal back- ground of the convict. Thus, the graver the offence  and the longer the criminal record, the more severe  is the punishment to be awarded.  By laying em- phasis  on individualised  justice,  and shaping the  result of the crime to the circumstances of the of- fender and the needs of the victim and community,  restorative justice eschews uniformity of sentenc- ing.  Undue  sympathy  to  impose  inadequate  sen- tence would do more harm to the public system to  undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of  law and society could not long endure under seri- ous threats.

22. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to  award proper sentence, having regard to the nature  of the offence and the manner in which it was exe- cuted or committed, etc. The courts should impose  a punishment befitting the crime so that the courts  are able to accurately reflect public abhorrence of  the crime. It is the nature and gravity of the crime,  and not the criminal, which are germane for con- sideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal  trial.  Imposition  of  sentence  without  considering  its effect on social order in many cases may be in  reality, a futile exercise.”

16. In view if the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to  

the  effect  that  one  of  the  prime  objectives  of  criminal  law  is  the  

imposition  of  adequate,  just,  proportionate  punishment  which  is  

commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in  

which  the  offence  is  committed.  The  most  relevant  determinative  

factor of sentencing is proportionality between crime and punishment  

keeping in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society. It  

11

Page 12

is  a mockery of  the criminal  justice  system to take a lenient  view  

showing mis-placed sympathy to  the  accused on any consideration  

whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings.  

The Punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscious  

of the society being abhorrent to the basic principles of sentencing.  

Thus, it is the solemn duty of the court to strike a  

proper balance while awarding sentence as awarding a  

lesser sentence encourages a criminal and as a result  

of the same society suffers.   

17. The case at hand is required to be decided on the basis of the  

aforesaid  settled  legal  propositions  in  respect  of  principles  of  

sentencing. Admittedly, four persons were injured and two of them  

had more than one head injury. There were too many injuries on their  

persons  and some of  them had been inflicted on vital  parts  of  the  

body. In our view, the High Court could not be justified in taking a  

lenient view which reduces the administration of the criminal justice  

system to a mockery.  

18. We do not find any force in the submission advanced by Shri  

Prashant Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that  

the  High Court  has  passed  a  correct  order  placing  reliance  on the  

earlier judgment in Ram Govind & Ors. v. State of M.P., (2002) 3  

12

Page 13

MPHT 301, wherein the accused therein had been convicted under  

Sections 147 and 325/149 IPC and awarded the sentence of 6 months  

RI under Section 147 IPC and a sentence of 1 year RI under Sections  

325/149 IPC, and further a fine had been imposed. The High Court  

considering the fact that period of 16 years had elapsed took a lenient  

view further placing reliance on earlier judgments in Vijay Singh v.  

State of M.P., (1994) II MPWN 98; and Havaldar Singh v. State of  

M.P., (1995) I MPWN 275 and reduced the sentence to the period  

undergone by them which was only 6 days for the reason that none of  

the judgments referred to in Ram Govind (supra) can be approved.   

19. All  the  judgments  relied  upon  by  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondents are not in consonance with the law of sentencing policy  

laid  down  by  this  court  in  any  of  the  judgments  referred  to  

hereinabove.  Taking such  a  lenient  view in  awarding the  sentence  

tantamounts to doing injustice of a crude form against the innocent  

victims and the society as a whole. Thus, the submission advanced is  

liable to be rejected.   

20. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The  

Judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Trial Court  

restored.  The respondents are directed to surrender within four weeks  

13

Page 14

from today failing which the learned Judicial  Magistrate,  Ist  Class  

Bhander, Distt. Datia is directed to take them into custody and send  

them to jail to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. A copy of  

the order be sent to the learned Magistrate concerned.  

……………………………..........J.  (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  

 ……………..................................J.                                                  (S.A. BOBDE)   

NEW DELHI;  August 12, 2013         

14