IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2014

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

UDHAM AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

N.V. RAMANA, J.    

1. The present appeal is directed by the appellant­State against

the final order dated 06.11.2012, passed by the High Court of

Madhya  Pradesh (Gwalior  Bench) in  Criminal  Appeal  No. 659  of

2011, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the

respondents­accused herein and reduced the sentence awarded by

the  Trial  Court to the  period  already  undergone for the  offences

under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to

as ‘IPC’] read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 452 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution’s case is that the complainant lodged a report

REPORTABLE

1

on 15.04.2008 that at around 9 p.m., while he was sitting inside his

house with three other people, the respondents­accused barged in,

carrying weapons. More specifically, respondent nos. 1 and 3 were

carrying axes, while respondent nos. 2 and 4 were carrying sticks.

The respondents­accused asked the complainant why he had not

kept his cow tied, and subsequently, on respondent no. 4’s

exhortation, the respondents­accused attacked the complainant and

the others present at that time resulting in various injuries to them.

Respondents­accused then allegedly threatened the complainant

that if he did not keep his cow confined, he would be killed.

3. The Trial Court tried the respondents­accused and ultimately

convicted them for the offences under Section 326 read with Section

34 of IPC as  well  as the  offence  under  Section  452  of IPC.  The

respondents­accused were  sentenced  to  undergo 3 years  rigorous

imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/­  (Rupees Two Hundred and

Fifty Only) each for the offence under Section 326 read with Section

34 of IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 1 year with a further fine of Rs. 250/­ (Rupees Two

Hundred and Fifty Only) each for the offence under Section 452 of

IPC. In case  of  default  of  payment  of fine, they  were  to  undergo

further rigorous imprisonment for 6  months.  All sentences  were

made to run concurrently by the Trial Court.

2

4. Being aggrieved, the respondents­accused filed an appeal

before the High Court,  challenging only the quantum of  sentence

imposed on them by the Trial Court. Vide impugned order, the High

Court partly allowed the appeal  and reduced the sentence to the

period of  imprisonment already undergone by them, which was a

period of 4 days, while enhancing the fine amount imposed upon

them by  Rs.  1500/­ (Rupees  One  Thousand  Five  Hundred  Only)

each. The respondents­accused were directed to deposit the

enhanced fine within a period of 30 days, failing which they were to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.  

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the State has filed the

present appeal challenging the order of the High Court reducing the

sentence awarded to the respondents­accused. The learned counsel

for the appellant­State submitted that the High Court erred in not

considering the gravity of the offence and the facts and

circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the

respondents­accused had undergone imprisonment of only 4 days.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents­

accused submitted that the High Court has correctly appreciated the

facts and circumstances of the case in passing the impugned order,

and therefore, the same does not merit any interference from this

3

Court.  7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the reasoning of the

High Court, for passing the impugned order and partly allowing the

appeals of the respondents­accused herein, is limited to one

sentence.  The  High  Court states in its order that looking to the

nature of the offence, the fact that this  is the first offence of the

respondents and the period of sentence already undergone by them,

it is passing the impugned order.

9. At this stage the observations of this Court in  Accused ‘X’ v.

State of Maharashtra,  (2019) 7 SCC 1, in which two of us were

part of the Bench, with respect to sentencing in India are relevant

here­ “49. Sentencing is  appropriate  allocation of  criminal sanctions, which is mostly given by the judicial branch. [Nicola Padfield, Rod Morgan and Mike Maguire, “Out of Court, Out of Sight? Criminal Sanctions and No Judicial Decision­making”, The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (5th Edn.).] This process occurring at the end of a trial still has a large impact on the efficacy of a criminal justice system. It is established that sentencing is a socio­legal process, wherein a Judge finds an appropriate punishment for the accused considering factual circumstances and equities. In light of the fact that the legislature provided for discretion to the Judges to give punishment, it becomes important to exercise the same in a principled manner.  We need to appreciate that a strict fixed punishment approach in sentencing cannot be acceptable, as the Judge needs to have sufficient discretion as well.

4

50. Before analysing this case, we need to address the issue of the impact of reasoning in the sentencing process. The reasoning of the trial court acts as a link between the general level of sentence for the offence committed and to  the  facts and circumstances.  The trial court is obligated to give reasons for the imposition of sentence, as firstly, it is a fundamental principle of  natural justice that the adjudicators must provide reasons for reaching the decision and secondly, the reasons assume more importance as the liberty of the accused is subject to the aforesaid reasoning.  Further,  the appellate court  is better enabled to assess the correctness of the quantum of punishment challenged, if the trial court has justified the same with reasons...”

(emphasis supplied)

10. In the present case, it is clear that there is no detailed analysis

of the facts of the case, the nature of the injuries caused, the

weapons used, the number of victims, etc. given by the High Court

in the impugned order. The High Court while sentencing the

accused, has not taken into consideration the second charge proved

against the respondents­accused herein, under Section 452 of IPC.

Even the fact that the respondents­accused  had  only  undergone

sentence of 4 days at the time of passing of the impugned order,

brings into question the High Court pointing to the same as a reason

for reducing their sentence.   As such, the order of the High Court

merits interference by this Court.  

11. We are of the opinion that a large number of cases are being

5

filed before this Court, due to insufficient or wrong sentencing

undertaken by the Courts below. We have time and again cautioned

against the cavalier manner in which sentencing is dealt in certain

cases. There is no gainsaying that the aspect of sentencing should

not be taken for granted, as this part of Criminal Justice System has

determinative impact on the society. In light of the same, we are of

the opinion that we need to provide further clarity on the same.

12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of

three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative

proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of

planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any),

role of the accused, anti­social or abhorrent character of the crime,

state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as

age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or

social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability

of  defense, state of  mind,  instigation by the deceased or any one

from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial,

disagreement by a judge in the appeal process, repentance,

possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending

cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).

13. Additionally, we may note that under the crime test,

seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime

6

may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii)  loss of

material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv)

privacy breach.

14. Coming to the appropriate sentence which is to be imposed on

the respondents­accused  in this  case, the  facts of this case need

closer scrutiny. The respondents­accused entered the house of the

complainant, attacked the others present with axes and with sticks.

Four people, including the complainant, were injured. The injuries

caused were incised wounds on the hands and backs of the victims,

an incised wound next to the ear of one of the victims and bruising,

etc. The respondents­accused were convicted for the offence under

Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, which carries a maximum

sentence of life imprisonment, or of imprisonment of a term which

may extend to ten years, and fine. They were also convicted under

Section 452 of IPC,  which carries  a maximum sentence  of  seven

years along with fine.

15. The respondents­accused herein were males of age 33 years, 33

years, 28 years and 70 years respectively at the time of the incident.

The main allegation as against the respondent nos. 1 and 3 is that

they had used an axe to attack the victim. In this scuffle there is no

dispute that some of the respondents­accused herein were also

7

injured profusely. Further the motivation seems to be that the cow

belonging to the victims had entered the household of the accused

and the respondent no. 1 with his co­accused are proved to be the

aggressor herein.  From the perusal  of the record, the  injuries on

some of the victims are not specifically attributed. The respondent

group was numerically matched with that of the victims and there

were two respondents­accused within the group carrying lathis. The

bodily integrity was compromised as a result of the injury caused,

but there was no evidence led to indicate any permanent

embellishments of any part. The scope of intrusion of privacy due to

the assault is also minimal. There was no material destruction

involved in the crime.

16. In this context,  we  need to  note that the facts  of the case

highlighted above, however, need to be balanced with the fact that

this was the first offence committed by the respondents­accused and

that the motive, which is stated to be trivial. There is a requirement

to treat the crime committed herein differently than other

objectionable situations such as police atrocities etc. [refer to

Yashwant v. State of Maharashtra,  AIR 2018 SC 4067] Having

regard to the fact that the occurrence of the crime is of the year

2008 and the  respondents­accused  have been, in a way, only

ordered to undergo four days of jail term with a fine of Rs. 1,500/­,

8

we need to enhance the same to commensurate with the guilt of the

respondents­accused.

17. Comparatively, having perused certain precedents of this

Court, we are of the considered opinion and accordingly direct that

for the commission of the offence under Section 326 of IPC read with

Section 34 of IPC, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to

serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.

75,000/­ (Rupees Seventy­Five Thousand Only) each within a period

of 1 month, on default of payment of which they are to suffer simple

imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence under Section 452 of

IPC, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to serve rigorous

imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/­

(Rupees Twenty­Five Thousand Only) each within a period of 1

month,  on default  of  payment of  which they are to suffer  simple

imprisonment for 3 months.  

18. For the offence under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34

of IPC, the respondent no. 4, who is presently aged around 80 years,

is sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to

pay a  fine of  Rs.50,000/­  (Rupees Fifty  Thousand Only)  within a

period of 1 month, on default of payment of which he is to suffer

simple imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence under Section 452

9

of IPC, respondent no. 4 is sentenced to serve rigorous

imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/­ (Rupees

Fifteen Thousand Only) within a period of 1 month, on default of

payment of which he is to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month.  

19. The above sentences are to run concurrently. Further, the

respondents are directed to be taken into custody forthwith, to serve

out their remaining sentence, as imposed hereinabove.  

20. Accordingly, the  appeal is  partly  allowed  and the impugned

order of the High Court is modified in the afore­stated terms.

..............................................J. (N.V. RAMANA)

..............................................J.  (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

..............................................J.  (AJAY RASTOGI)

NEW DELHI; October 22, 2019.

10