1

         NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 959 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3509 of 2016

The State of Rajasthan                                       ..Appellant

Versus

Mohan Lal & Another                                    ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

Leave granted.

2. Judgment dated 25.05.2015 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in Appeal No.215 of

1992  is  questioned  in  this  appeal  by  the  State  with  the

prayer  for  enhancement  of  sentence.  By  the  impugned

judgment, the High Court has confirmed the judgment and

order  of  conviction  passed  by  the  Sessions  Court,

Sambharlake in Sessions Case No.14/1992 for the offences

2

under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),

but  has  reduced  the  sentence  from  3  years’  rigorous

imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offences under

Section 325, IPC and 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment and

fine  of  Rs.  250/-  under  Section  323,  IPC  to  the  period

already undergone.

3. The accused (respondent herein) was charged with and tried

for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 447,

323 and 341, IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Sambharlake,  by  the  judgment  dated  19.05.1992  in

Sessions Case No. 14/1992 convicted the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323, IPC. The

Sessions  Court  imposed  a  sentence  of  3  years’  rigorous

imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offences under

Section 325, IPC; and 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment and

fine of Rs. 250/- was imposed for the offence under Section

323,  IPC.  On appeal  by  the  convicted  accused,  the  High

Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench confirmed

the judgment of conviction but reduced the sentence to the

period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused.

By then, the accused had undergone 6 days’ imprisonment

3

only. Being aggrieved by the meagre sentence, the State is

before  us  as  an  appellant  praying  for  enhancement  of

sentence. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that due to old enmity

relating to a land dispute, one Kapurchand was assaulted

by the accused; one Phoolchand who intervened in the fight

also  sustained  an  injury  because  of  the  assault  by  the

accused. As mentioned supra, the accused was tried for the

offences under Sections 307 and 326, IPC apart from other

offences, but was convicted for the offences under Sections

325 and 323, IPC.

5. During  the  course  of  the  trial,  the  informant  (PW1),  the

injured  Kapurchand  (PW2)  and  the  second  injured

Phoolchand  (PW5)  were  examined,  apart  from  other

witnesses, including the doctor who treated the injured. The

trial  court  has  found  the  evidence  of  PWs  1,  2  and  5

consistent, cogent, reliable and trustworthy and proceeded

to convict the accused. The doctor fully supported the case

of  the  prosecution.  The  medical  records,  including  the

evidence of the Doctor, conclusively prove that injury no.1

sustained by PW2-Kapurchand was a grievous injury, in as

4

much  as  Kapurchand  sustained  a  fracture  of  the  right

parietal bone.   6. It is clear from the judgment of the High Court that though

the accused had filed an appeal questioning his conviction

and sentence before the High Court, during the course of

arguments  he  did  not  press  the  appeal  filed  against  the

judgment  of  conviction,  praying  only  for  reduction  of

sentence.  The  High  Court  decided  the  Criminal  Appeal

accepting such request,  and reduced the sentence to the

period already undergone. However, as a matter of fact, as

mentioned  supra,  the  accused  had,  by  then,  been  in

confinement only for 6 days.

7. Since the accused has not filed further appeal and as this

appeal has been filed by the State praying for enhancement

of sentence, we have decided this appeal confining ourselves

to the sentence to be imposed.

8. The  Medical  Officer  of  the  authorized  Primary  Health

Centre,  Kishangarh  Renwal,  examined  the  injuries

sustained  by  the  two  injured,  viz.  Kapurchand  and

Phoolchand.  While  Phoolchand  had  sustained  only  one

injury of  a simple nature, which was inflicted by a blunt

object,  Kapurchand  had  sustained  two  injuries,  out  of

5

which one was simple and the other was serious. Therefore,

Kapurchand was advised to undergo an X-ray.  The X-ray

report (Exhibit-P4) revealed that his right parietal bone was

fractured.  The  medical  report  (Exhibit-P1)  discloses  the

injury no.1 as grievous in nature. The Medical Officer has

given his  opinion in  Exhibit-P5  that  the  injury  no.1  was

life-threatening.

9. The High Court simply brushed aside the aforementioned

material  facts  and  sentenced  the  accused  to  the  period

already undergone by him, which is only 6 days in this case.

In our view, the Trial Court and the High Court have taken

a lenient view by convicting the accused for offences under

Sections 325 and 323, IPC. Absolutely no reasons, much

less valid reasons, are assigned by the High Court to impose

the meagre sentence of 6 days. Such imposition of sentence

by the  High Court  shocks the  judicial  conscience  of  this

Court.   10.Currently,  India  does  not  have  structured  sentencing

guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or

the  judiciary.   However,  the  Courts  have  framed  certain

guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence.  A Judge

6

has  wide  discretion  in  awarding  the  sentence  within  the

statutory limits.  Since in many offences only the maximum

punishment  is  prescribed  and  for  some  offences  the

minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises

his discretion accordingly.  There cannot, therefore, be any

uniformity.  However, this Court has repeatedly held that

the Courts will have to take into account certain principles

while  exercising  their  discretion  in  sentencing,  such  as

proportionality,  deterrence  and  rehabilitation.   In  a

proportionality  analysis,  it  is  necessary  to  assess  the

seriousness  of  an  offence  in  order  to  determine  the

commensurate  punishment  for  the  offender.   The

seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things,

also upon its harmfulness.    11.This  Court  in  the  case  of  Soman  Vs.  State  of  Kerala

[(2013) 11 SCC 382] observed thus:  “27.1.  Courts  ought  to  base  sentencing decisions on various different rationales – most prominent  amongst  which  would  be proportionality and deterrence. 27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action  can  be  relevant  from  both  a proportionality and deterrence standpoint. 27.3.  Insofar  as proportionality  is  concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence.

7

27.4.  One  of  the  factors  relevant  for  judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it. 27.5.  Unintended  consequences/harm  may still  be  properly  attributed  to  the  offender  if they  were  reasonably  foreseeable.  In  case  of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its  manufacturer  but the  distributor  and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer.  Hence,  even  though  any  harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor.”

12.The same is the verdict of this Court in  Alister Anthony

Pareira  Vs.  State  of  Maharashtra  [(2012)  2  SCC  648]

wherein it is observed thus:   

“84.  Sentencing  is  an  important  task  in  the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal 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 attendant circumstances.”

13.From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the

principle  governing  the  imposition  of  punishment  will

8

depend  upon  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case.

However,  the  sentence  should  be  appropriate,  adequate,

just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and

gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is

committed.  The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime,

nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances

have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence.  The

Court  cannot  afford  to  be  casual  while  imposing  the

sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are

equally important in the sentencing process.   The Courts

must see that the public does not lose confidence in the

judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do more

harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where

the  victim  loses  confidence  in  the  judicial  system  and

resorts to private vengeance.    14.In  the  matter  at  hand,  it  is  proved  that  the  victim  has

sustained a grievous injury on a vital portion of the body,

i.e. the head, which was fractured.  The doctor has opined

that  the  injury  was  life  threatening.   Hence,  in  our

considered  opinion,  the  High  Court  was  too  lenient  in

9

imposing the sentence of six days only which was the period

already undergone by the accused in confinement. 15.Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances,

and  as  it  is  brought  to  our  notice  that  the  parties  have

forgotten their differences and are living peacefully since 25

years,  we  impose  a  sentence  of  6  months’  rigorous

imprisonment and a fine of  Rs.  25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Five  Thousand)  against  the  accused.  While  doing  so,  we

have  taken into  consideration  the  aggravating  as  well  as

mitigating factors under the facts of this case.

16.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The accused (respondent

herein)  is imposed with a sentence of  6 months’  rigorous

imprisonment and a fine of  Rs.  25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Five Thousand) for the offences under Section 325, IPC. In

case of default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo

further  rigorous  imprisonment  for  3  months.  In  case  the

fine is deposited by the convicted accused, the same shall

be disbursed in favour of the injured PW2, viz. Kapurchand

as  compensation.  The  accused/respondent  be  taken  into

custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. However, he is

entitled  to  the  benefit  of  set-off  of  the  period  already

10

undergone in confinement by him. The judgment of the High

Court is modified accordingly.

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

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

New Delhi; August 01, 2018.