Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1052 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6131 of 2012]

State of M.P. .. Appellant

Versus

Mohan & Others .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. State  is  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  High  Court  dated  

13.12.2011  passed  in  CRLA  No.  898  of  2007,  reducing  the  

sentence awarded by the trial  Court from three years Rigorous  

Imprisonment with a fine of  Rs.1,000/-  to  each of  the accused

Page 2

2

persons,  with  default  clause,  to  that  of  the  period  already  

undergone.

3. Respondents  herein  were  charge-sheeted  for  the  offences  

punishable under Sections 294, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and  

were  convicted  and  sentenced  as  stated  above.   The  incident  

leading  to  the  above  charges  occurred  on  11.6.2006 at  11.00  

O’clock in the night when complainants attempted to drive away  

the  animals  of  the  accused  persons  trespassed  into  their  

courtyard.   Accused  persons,  infuriated  by  the  conduct  of  the  

complainants,  reached  the  spot  of  the  incident  and  started  

abusing them.    One of the accused, Ummed Singh, using his fire  

arm, fired a gun shot, which hit Lalaram, one of the complainants  

on his back and the complainant including Lalaram in order to  

save their lives ran away from the spot.  Ummed Singh again fired  

another  gunshot,  which  hit  Mogh  Singh,  another  complainant.  

Due  to  the  injuries  sustained  by  Lalaram,  he  fell  down.   The  

accused  persons  committed  the  same  in  furtherance  of  their

Page 3

3

common intention or knowledge that their actions would result in  

causing death to the complainants.

4. The  prosecution,  in  order  to  establish  the  guilt  of  the  

accused persons, examined large number of witnesses including  

PW14,  the  doctor  who  examined  the  injured  persons.   The  

defence also adduced oral evidence.   

 5. Dr. Sudhir Rathore (PW-14) examined the injured Lalaram on  

12.6.2006 and found the following injuries on his person:

(i) Lacerated wound having diameter of 0.5 cm. over scalp  occipital  region  and  skin  deep  blackening  seen  all  around the wound.

(ii) Lacerated wound of 0.5cm over left scapular region and  muscle deep blackening seen all around the wound.

(iii) Lacerated wound of 0.5 cm. over right arm middle, 1/3rd  

medial aspect and blackening seen all around.

P.W.14, after examining Kamar Lal on 12.2.2006, noticed the  

following injuries on him:

(i) Lacerated wound of 0.5 cm on the right thumb and the  blackening was present all around the injury.

(ii) Lacerated wound of 0.5 cm on the lateral aspect.

Page 4

4

6. P.W.14  also  examined  the  father  of  the  complainant  and  

found lacerated wound of 0.5 cm on the vertex part of the head  

and  the  blackening  was  found  all  around  the  wound.   Doctor  

deposed that the injuries were caused by the use of the firearm.

7. The trial court after appreciating the entire evidence held as  

follows:  

“46. In the night at 11 O’ clock coming of the accused  persons  equipped  with  weapons  and  firing  at  the  informant side not only once rather several times and  to do so without any provocation and at  the time of  occurrence there intention also that killed all of them,  show  this  common  intention  of  the  accused  persons  that in reality the intention of the accused persons was  to kill the informant side.

48. In such circumstance for concluding the intention  of the accused persons the selection of the vehicle used  in the crime by them is very important, which is in the  circumstance of the present case is gun and according  to the report (Exhibit P.26), the pellet,  article ‘D’ has  been examined this can be fired from the gun, article  ‘A-1’  and  an  one  barreled  gun  of  12  bore  even  the  examination of which has been done by the Assistant  Chemical  Examiner  and  the  Senior  Scientist  Officer,  according to that it was in the operative condition and  from the  residue  found  in  the  barreled  of  which  the  presence of nitrite has been found to be positive which  shows this that this gun has been used and although

Page 5

5

conclusively this cannot be said that when it has been  used for  the last  time, because scientifically it  is  not  possible to tell this with certainty.”

8. The trial Court, after holding the accused persons guilty of  

the charges leveled against them, took a lenient view, though the  

term of the sentence under Section 307 IPC may extend to life  

imprisonment, if hurt is caused to any person by such an act and  

held as follows:

“58. The  entire  circumstances  was  studied.    The  accused persons are farmers and both the side are of  same family.  Among them the dispute of partition is  pending. Prominently and importantly the injuries which  have been sustained by the injured persons, except the  injury  of  thumb  others  are  of  superficial  nature  the  doctor has not given report regarding any injury to be  fatal;  therefore  in  the  well-thought  opinion  it  is  very  essential  to  give  this  much sentence to  the  accused  persons, due to which they can realize the seriousness  of  their  crime  and  which  is  in  accordance  with  the  offence committed by them.”

9. Taking note of the above aspects, the trial Court, as already  

indicated,  sentenced  all  the  accused  persons  to  suffer  three  

years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each  

and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused persons

Page 6

6

were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further one  

year.    

10. In the appeal  before the High Court,  the accused persons  

stated  that  they  had  already  deposited  the  fine  and  are  

challenging only on the quantum of sentence.   Further, it was  

also  submitted  that  the  accused  persons  were  not  persons  of  

criminal antecedent.  The High Court, we may say so, by a cryptic  

order reduced the sentence awarded to the accused persons to  

the period already undergone by them.  The relevant portion of  

the order of the High Court is extracted hereunder:

“Considering the nature of offence and the period  which has already undergone by the appellants, further  considering the fact that the injury has not been caused  on  vital  part,  seems to  be  sufficient  for  the  ends  of  justice.  Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants is  partly  allowed  maintaining  the  conviction  of  the  appellants  and  their  jail  sentences  are  reduced  to  already undergone.”

11. Even though the High Court has stated that the sentence is  

being reduced taking note of the nature of the offence and the  

fact that injury has not been caused on the vital parts of the body,  

we notice, it has neither been discussed nor referred to the nature

Page 7

7

of the offence or the injuries.   The High Court also not examined  

whether  the  period  undergone  would  be  sufficient  and  

commensurate with the guilt established.  The following chart also  

would indicate the period the accused persons spent in judicial  

custody:

S. No. Name  of  the  accused

Date  of  arrest

Date  of  release

Days  of  Custody

1. Mohan  Singh  Dhakad

12.06.06 31.07.06 50 days

2. Ummed  Singh  Dhakad

13.06.06 08.01.2007 211 Days

3. Balbir Singh  Dhakad

17.06.2006 25.07.2006 39 Days

4. Hiralal  Yadav

03.07.2006 25.07.2006 23 Days

12. PW14, the doctor, has explained the nature of injuries and  

use of the firearm for causing the injuries.  Fire arm, it is proved,  

was  used  repeatedly  against  the  complainants,  causing  bodily  

hurt.  This Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section  

307,  IPC  in  Sadha Singh and Another  v.  State of  Punjab  

(1985)  3  SCC  225,  wherein  the  trial  Court  awarded  the  

substantive sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment and

Page 8

8

also imposed a fine, which were reduced by the High Court to a  

period of three months of imprisonment already undergone by the  

accused,  but  by  enhancing the  fine.   This  Court  held  that  the  

reduction of the sentence was not justified.   In that case also, the  

doctor opined that the injuries were caused by firearm, just like  

the present case.  This Court, reversing the judgment of the High  

Court and upholding that of the trial Court, held as follows:

“8. If  the  learned  Judge  had  in  mind  the  provisions of Section 360 of CrPC so as to extend the  benefit of treatment reserved for first offenders, these  appellants hardly deserve the same. Admittedly, both  the appellants were above the age of 21 years on the  date  of  committing  the  offence.  They  have  wielded  dangerous weapons like firearms. Four shots were fired.  The only fortunate part  of the occurrence is  that the  victim escaped death.  The offence committed by the  appellants is proved to be one under Section 307 of IPC  punishable  with  imprisonment  for  life.  We  were  told  that the appellants had hardly suffered imprisonment  for three months. If the offence is under Section 307 IPC  i.e. attempt to commit murder which is punishable with  imprisonment for life and the sentence to be awarded is  imprisonment for three months, it is better not to award  substantive  sentence  as  it  makes  mockery  of  justice……..”

13. This Court in State of M.P. v. Sangram and Others (AIR  

2006 SC 48) took strong exception in the manner in which the

Page 9

9

High Court, while disposing of the criminal appeal, reduced the  

sentence without application of mind.  That was also a case where  

the  accused  was  charge-sheeted  for  offence  punishable  under  

Section 307 IPC.  The trial Court imposed the sentence of seven  

years  rigorous  imprisonment,  which  was  reduced  by  the  High  

Court  to  one year,  without stating any satisfactory reasons for  

reduction of sentence.  This Court held as follows:

“5. The  High  Court  has  not  assigned  any  satisfactory reasons for reducing the sentence to less  than one year.

6. That apart, the High Court has written a very  short  and  cryptic  judgment.   To  say  the  least,  the  appeal has been disposed of in a most unsatisfactory  manner  exhibiting  complete  non-application  of  mind.  There  is  absolutely  no  consideration  of  the  evidence  adduced by the parties.”

14. We  are  of  the  view  that  in  spite  of  various  judicial  

pronouncements  of  this  Court,  we  have  come  across  several  

cases where the High Courts are committing the same mistake  

and  reducing  the  sentence  without  application  of  mind  and  

stating no reasons.  In a case where the accused persons have  

already been found guilty under Section 307 IPC, we fail to see

Page 10

10

how the sentence of about 20 to 50 days or 211 days in the case  

of  accused  Ummed  Singh,  would  be  an  adequate  sentence.  

Sentence already undergone, in our view, is not commensurate  

with the guilt  established.   If  the High Court considers it  fit  to  

reduce the sentence, it must state reasons, for the reduction   

15. High Court, in our view, while reducing the sentence, has not  

properly appreciated the scope of Section 307, IPC under which  

the respondents were found guilty.

The relevant portion of Section 307 reads as follows:

“307. Attempt to murder.-- Whoever does any act with  such  intention  or  knowledge,  and  under  such  circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he  would  be  guilty  of  murder,  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  of  either  description  for  a  term which  may extend to ten years,  and shall  also be liable to  fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act,  the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for  life,  or  to  such  punishment  as  is  hereinbefore  mentioned……..”  

16. High Court was of opinion that injuries has not been caused  

on vital parts of the body.  In order to attract Section 307, the  

injury need not be on the vital  parts of the body.   In order to

Page 11

11

attract Section 307, causing of hurt is sufficient. If anybody does  

any  act  with  intention  or  knowledge that  by  his  act  he  might  

cause death and hurt is caused, that is sufficient to attract life  

imprisonment.   Section 307 uses the word ‘hurt’ which has been  

explained in Section 319, IPC and not “grievous hurt” within the  

meaning  of  Section  320,  IPC.   Therefore,  in  order  to  attract  

Section 307, the injury need not be on the vital part of the body.  

A gun shot, as in the present case, may miss the vital part of the  

body, may result in a lacerated wound, that itself is sufficient to  

attract Section 307.  High Court is, therefore, in error in reducing  

the sentence, holding that the injury was not on the vital part of  

the body.  Period undergone by way of sentence also in our view  

is not commensurate with the guilt established.    

 17. We also have to remind ourselves the object and purpose of  

imposing adequate sentence.   Reference may be made to  the  

judgment of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem  

@ Chamaru and Anr. , AIR 2005 SC 3996.

“8. The object should be to protect the society and to  deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law

Page 12

12

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.

9. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect  on the social order in many cases may be in reality a  futile  exercise.  The  social  impact  of  the  crime,  e.g.  where  it  relates  to  offences  against  women,  dacoity,  kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason  and other offences involving moral turpitude -or moral  delinquency which have great impact on social order,  and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se  require  exemplary  treatment.  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.

10. 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".”

18. We,  therefore,  find  no  good  reason  to  interfere  with  the  

judgment of the trial court.  Consequently, the appeal is allowed

Page 13

13

and judgment of the High Court reducing the sentence is set aside  

and the judgment and order of the trial Court are restored.

……………………………..J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………..J. (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

New Delhi, July 30, 2013