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