GOPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

                          [2013] 4 S.C.R. 104


 A                           GOPAL SINGH
                                    v.
                      STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2013)

                         FEBRUARY 08, 2013
 B
              [G.S. SINGHVI AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860 - s. 324 - Conviction under, of.
   accused-appellant - For firing gunshot at PW3 from a country_
C made pistol ('kattaJ thereby causing firearm injury to him :..-_
   Justification of the conviction - Held: Justified - PW1 cleariY
   stated that appellant had fired from his country made pistpl
   which hit his nephew, PW3 - Similarly, PW2, father of P~,
   vividly narrated the incident - Testimony of PW3 that wh~n
o his uncle, PW1, was preparing accounts in his shop, he was      /
   suddenly hit by bullet fired by the appellant - Medica1
   evidence made it clear that the injury was caused by fireirm,
  - PW5, the investigating officer, deposed that he ff ad
  recovered pellets of 'katta' from the wall of the shop room,,/ the
E place of the incident - No explanation offered by the defence
  for the same - Under the circumstances, solely because the
  'katta' was not recovered, the prosecution version should not
  be disbelieved - Taking into consideration the nature of the
  injury and the weapon used, conviction of appellant u/s. 324
F /PC was justified.

       Sentence I Sentencing - Accused-appellant fired
  gunshot at PW3 causing firearm injury to the latter- Appellant
  convicted u/s. 324 and sentenced to 3 years RI - Sentence
  challenged by defence as excessive - Held: Legislature in
G respect of offence punishable uls.324 /PC has provided
  punishment which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with
  both - Legi$fative intent js to confer discretion on the judiciary
  in imposition of sentence in respect of such offence where it

H                                104
     GOPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                      105


has not provided the minimum sentence or made it A
 conditional - But discretion vested required to be embedded
 in rational concepts based on sound facts - In the instant
 case, the doctor did not state the injury to be grievous but on
'the contrary mentioned that there was no fracture and only a
 muscle injury - Weapon used (country made pistol) fits in to B
  the description as provided uls.324 /PC - Occurrence took
 place almost 20 years back - Parties were neighbours and
  nothing on record to show that appellant had any criminal
  antecedents - In the totality of the facts and circumstances,
  sentence of 1 year RI u/s.324 IPC would be adequate - That          c
  apart, appellant directed to pay Rs. 20, 0001- to the victim
  towards compensation as envisaged u/s.357(3) CrPC - Penal
   Code, 1860 - s.324.

       Sentence I Sentencing - Appropriate sentence -
  Principle of proportionality between crime and punishment -         D
  Held: Punishment should not be disproportionately excessive
  - Concept of proportionality allows significant discretion to the
  ~udge but the same has to be guided by certain principles -
  There can neither be a strait-jacket formula nor a solvable
  theory in mathematical exactitude - It would depend on the          E
  facts of the case and rationalized judicial discretion - The
  discretion should be embedded in the conceptual essence
~ of just punishment.

      The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant F
  alongwith other accused persons assaulted PW1 with
  hands, fists and stones and took away money from his
  shop and also from his pocket and further fired gunshot
  at PW3 causing firearm injury to him. The trial court
  convicted the appellant under Sections 307, 324 and 380 G
  of IPC. The High Court set aside the conviction under
  Sections 307 and 380 IPC but maintained the conviction
  under Section 324 IPC upon coming to a finding that the
  appellant had fired a gunshot at PW3 and on that count
  sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for H
    106      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.


 A three years.

       In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that
  the finding that he had fired a gunshot had not been
   proven beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the 'Katta'
  (country made pistol that was ·fired) had not been seized.
8
  In the alternative, the appellant contended that regard
  being had to the nature of the injury, the age of the
  appellant at the time ·of the incident, and the evidence on
  record that there was no fracture and no injury barring a
C muscle injury, the rigorous imprisonment of three years
  imposed upon him was excessive.

        Disposing of the appeal, the Court

         HELD: 1. PW-1 has clearly stated that the appellant
0 had fired from his country made pistol which had hit his
    nephew, PW3. Similarly, PW2, the father of injured PW3,
    has vividly narrated the incident. It has come in the
   testimony of PW3 that when his uncle, PW1, was
   preparing accounts in his shop, he was suddenly hit by
E bullet fired by the appellant. From the medical evidence,
   it is clear that the injury was caused by firearm. PW5, the
   investigating officer, has deposed that he had recovered
   the pellets of 'Katta' from the wall of the shop room, the
   place of the incident. No explanation for the same has
F been offered by the defence. Under these circumstances,
  solely because the 'Katta' has not been recovered, the
  prosecution version should not be disbelieved. The
  s·essions Judge, taking into consideration the nature of
  the injury and the weapon used, has convicted the
                                              1




  accused under Section 324 of IPC which has been
G accepted by the High Court. There is no fallacy either in
  the analysis or in the finding recorded on _that score.
  [Paras 12, 13] [112-G; 113-A-D, H; 114-8]

       Anwaru/ Haq v. State of U.P. (2005) 10 SCC 581: 2005
H (3) SCR 917 - relied on.
    GOPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                 107

      2.1. Just punishment is the collective cry of the A
society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost
in the mind, simultaneously the principle of
proportionality between the crime and punishment
cannot be totally brushed aside. A punishment should
not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of 8
proportionality allows a significant discretion to the
Judge but the same has to be guided by certain
principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the
antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the
 potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, C
 capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life
 in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become
 a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time
 in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the
 interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the
 relationship between the parties and attractability of the 0
 doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social ·
 mainstream may be the guiding factors. There can neither
  be a strait-jacket formula nor a solvable theory in
  mathematical exactitude. It would be dependant on the
  facts of the case and rationalized judicial discretion. [Para E
  18] [117-C-G]

     2.2. The legislature in respect of an offence
 punishable under Section 324 of the IPC has provided
 punishment which may extend to three years or with fine        F
 or with both. The legislative intent is to confer discretion
 on the judiciary in imposition of sentence in respect of
 such offence where it has not provided the minimum
 sentence or made it conditional. The discretion vested
 cannot be allowed to roam in the realm of fancy but is         G
 required to be embedded in rational concepts based on
 sound facts. [Para 23] [119-E-F]

     2.3. In the case at hand, the doctor has not stated the
 injury to be grievous but on the contrary, he has
                                                                H
     108     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013) 4 $.C.R.


A mentioned that there is no fracture and ~>nly a muscle
  injury. The weapon used fits in to the description as
  provided under Section 324 of IPC. The occurrence has
  taken place almost 20 years back. The parties are
  neighbours and there is nothing on record to show that
8 the appellant had any criminal antecedents. Regard being
  had to the totality of the facts and circumstances, in the
  obtaining factual score, the sentence of rigorous
  imprisonment of one year under Section 324 of IPC
  would be adequate. That apart, the appellants shall pay
                       l   •           ,,



  a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation as.
C envisaged under Section 357(3) of CrPC to the victim. The
  said amount shall be deposited before the trial Judge
  who shall disburse
                  .    the same in favour
                                      .     of the victim ·on
  proper identification. [Para 24] [119-G; 120-A-C]

D       Santa Singh v. The State of Punjab (1976) 4. SCC 190:
  · 1977 (1) SCR 229; Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010)
    12 SCC 532: 2009 (15) SCR 712; Shailesh Jasvantbhai and
    Another v. State of Gujarat and Others (2006) 2 SCC 359:
    2006 (1) SCR 477; Guru Bas.avaraj v. State of Karnataka
E (2012) 8 SCC 734; Dharma Pal and Others v. State of Punjab
   AIR 1993 SC 2484: Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar and
    Others v. State of Gujarat AIR 1996 SC 3236 and Para
    Seenaiah and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
    Another (2012) 6 SCC 800 - relied on.
F                     Case Law Reference:
       2005 (3) SCR 917        relied on           Para 12
       1977 (1) SCR 229        relied on           Para 14
G      2009 (15) SCR 712       relied on          Para 15
       2006 (1) SCR 477        relied on          Para 16
       (2012) 8 sec 734        relied on          Para 17
       AIR 1993 SC 2484        relied on          Para 20
H
   GO PAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                   109


    AIR 1996 SC 3236          relied on             Para 21        A
    (2012) 6 sec aoo         .relied on             Para 22

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 291 of 2013.
                                                                   8
    From the Judgme·nt & Orders dated 15.03.2012 of the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.
137 of 2001.

    Sunil Kumar Bharti for the Appellant.
                                                                   c
    Abhishek Atrey for the Respondent

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                   D
     2. In this appeal preferred by Special Leave, the appellant
calls in question the legal substantiality of the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 15.3.2012 passed by
the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal
No. 137 of 2001 whereby the learned Single Judge has set           E
aside the conviction under Sections 307 and 380 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short "the IPC") but maintained the conviction
and sentence under Section 324 of the IPC passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 24 of
 1994.                                                             F

      3. The facts which are essential to be stated for
 adjudicaUon of this appeal are that an FIR was lodged by Prem
 Singh, PW-2, alleging that about 9.00 p.m. on 20.10.1992, on
 hearing a gunshot sound and simultaneously the cry of his
 brother, Gopal Singh, PW-1, that he was being assaulted and       G
 his life was in danger, he rushed to the shop of Gopal Singh
 and found that accused Gopal Singh and his brother Puran
 Singh were beating him with hands, fists and stones. He saw
 Har Singh, the father of the assailants, standing outside the
                                                                       H
     110      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A shop along with two unknown persons. It was alleged that
    Narain Singh, PW-3, son of Prem Singh, had sustained a
   gunshot injury. The informant and his nephew, Surendra Singh,
   took the injured Gopal Singh and Narain Singh to Ranikhet
   Hospital. It was further alleged that the accused persons had
B took away Rs.25,000/- from the shop of PW-1 and Rs.1200/-
   from his pocket. Be it noted that after taking the injured persons
   to the hospital for treatment, an FIR was lodged with the
   Patwari, Bilekh. After the criminal law was set in motion, the
   Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses
c under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
  prepared the site plan, Ext.-7, recovered the pellets, seized the
  blood-stained clothes of the injured persons and got them
  examined by the doctor, PW-4, and, eventually, on completion
  of investigation, placed the charge-sheet for the offences
  punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307 and 395 of the
0
  IPC before the learned Magistrate who, in turn, committed the
  matter to the Court of Session.

        4. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded
   false implication due to animosity which was founded on the
E harassment of Har Singh in the Gram Sabha election that was
  contested by Gopal Singh. Be it stated, during the pendency
  of the trial, Puran Singh expired as a consequence of which
  the trial proceeded against the accused persons, namely,
  Gopal Singh and Har Singh.
F
        5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges
  framed against the accused persons, examined five witnesses,
  namely, Gopal Singh, PW1, the injured, Puran Singh, PW2, the
  brother of the injured, Narain Singh, PW3, who received the
G gunshot injury, Dr. N. K Pande, PW4, who examined the injured
  persons and Bachhi Singh Bora, PW5, the investigating officer,
  and got number of documents exhibited. The defence chose
  not to adduce any evidence in support of the plea taken.

      6. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the
H material brought on record, acquitted Har Singh of all the
    GOPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                    111
              [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
charges. However, he convicted accused Gopal Singh under          A
Sections 307, 324 and 380 of the IPC giving credence to the
testimony of PWs 1,3,4 and partly of PW 2 and sentenced him
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, one year and
four years respectively under said scores with the stipulation
that all the sentences shall be concurrent.                       s
      7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence,
the accuse_d appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 137 of
2001. The learned Single Judge noted the fact that Gopal
Singh had not sustained the gunshot injury but injuries were
caused because of blows by fist, kicks and stones as a result C
of which there was fracture on the 10th rib of the said injured.
 However, the High Court was of the opinion that Puran Singh
 might have applied the same means and same force and as
 he had. died during the trial, it was advisable to extend the
 benefit of doubt to the appellant. Being of this view, it came to D
 hold that the appellant is not guilty of the offence punishable
 under Section 307 of the IPC. At this juncture, we may state
 that whether the analysis of the High Court on this score is
 correct or not, need not be gone into as the State has not
 assailed the impugned judgment. Therefore, we are compelled E
 to leave it at that.

      8. As is perceivable, the High-Court has found that the
 appellant had fired a gunshot at Narain. For the commission
 of the said crime, the learned trial Judge had convicted him     F
 under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo
 rigorous imprisonment for three years. The High Court did not
 find any flaw in the analysis of the learned Sessions Judge on
 that count and gave its stamp of approval to the same. As far
 as the conviction under Section 380 is concerned, the High       G
 Court acquitted the accused-appellant.

      9. Mr. Sunil Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the
 appellant, contended that the finding that the appellant had
 fired a gunshot has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt
 inasmuch as the 'Katta' (country made pistol that was fired)         H
      112       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 4 S.C.R.


 A    has not been seized. In the alternative, it is urged by him that
      regard being had to the nature of the injury, the age of the
      appellant at the time of the incident, the evidence on record that
      there was no fracture and no injury barring a muscle injury, the
      rigorous imprisonment of three years is excessive and it
 8    deserves to be reduced.

        10. Dr. Abhishek Atrey, learned counsel for the State
   supporting the judgment of conviction as well as the order of
   sentence, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has
   correctly analysed the testimony of PWs who have deposed
C about the occurrence and further taken note of the fact that there
   has been recovery of pellet from the wall of the shop room of
   Gopal Singh and, accordingly has opined that the injury was
  caused on Narain Singh from the gunshot fired from the 'Katta'
  (country made pistol) by the accused and, therefore, the
D conclusion arrived at on that base cannot be found fault with.
  Meeting the alternative argument which pertains to the
  imposition of excessive sentence, the learned counsel for the
  State would urge that in a case of the present nature, the
  rigorous imprisonment of three years cannot be regarded as
E disproportionate.

          11. At the very outset, we may state with profit that a counter
     case was filed by the accused persons but there was no
     allegation in the FIR that the gunshot was fired from the licensed
F    gun of Prem Singh and, eventually, the said case has ended
     up in acquittal.

       12. Coming to the evidence on record, it is noticeable that
  PW-1 has clearly stated that accused Gopal Singh had fired
  from his country made pistol which had hit his nephew, Narain
G Singh. In the cross-examination, what has been elicited is that
  Prem Singh, father of Narain Singh, an ex-serviceman, is a
  holder of licensed gun. He has categorically stated that the
  occurrence had taken place inside his shop room. There has
  been no cross-examination on these counts. Similarly, Prem
H
      GOPAL .SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                  113
                 [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

   Singh, the father of injured Narain Singh, has vividly narrated A
   the incident. The cross-examination basically relates to enmity
   and theft of money. PW 3 is the injured Narain Singh. It has
   come in his testimony that when his. uncle, Gopal Singh, was
   preparing accounts in his shop, he was suddenly hit by bullet
. fired by the accused, Gopal Singh. It is interesting to note tnat B
   what has been elicited from the testimony is that his father had
   a licensed gun. From the medical evidence, it is limpid that the
   injury was caused by firearm. PWS, the investigating officer,
   has deposed that he had recovered .the pellets of 'Katta' from
   the wall of the shop room, the place of the incident Under these C
    circumstances, we ~re disposed to think that solely because
    the 'Katta' ~as not been recovered, the prosecution version
    should not be disbelieved,. In this context, we r:nay refer with
·. prom' to. the decision in Anwarul Haq v. State of U. P. 1 wherein
    it was held·. that solely because the knife that was used in 0
    com.mitting the offence had not been recovered during the .
    investigation could not be a factor to disregard the evidence
    of the prosecution "fitnesses who had deposed abs·o1utely
    convincingly about ~he us.e of the weapon."Thaf apart, the Court
    also referred· to the evidence of the doctor which mentioned
    about the use of weapon It is worth noting that this Court E
    ·observed that though the doctor's opinion about the weapon
    was theoretical, yet it cannot be totally wiped out. Regard being
    had to the aforesaid, this Court maintained the sentence of one
    year rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 of IPC as
    imposed by the trial Court and concurred with by the High F
    Court.

       13. We may hasten to clarify that we are placing reliance
 on the. aforesaid dictum as ·in the case at hand there is the
 doctor's evid~nce that the injury has been caused by the G
 gunshot and the pellets have been recovered from the walls of
 the ~hop room of the accused appellant and no explanation for
 the ~ame. has been offered by the defence. What has been
 elicited in the cross-examination is that Prem Singh, the father
 1. (2005) 10 sec 581.                                            H
    114       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A of the injured, had a licensed gun. We really fail to fathom how
  the said elicitation would render any assistance to the defence.
  The learned sessions Judge, taking into consideration the
  nature of the injury and the weapon used, has convicted the
  accused under Section 324 of IPC which has been accepted
B by the High Court. We perceive no fallacy either in the analysis
  or in the finding recorded on that score.

        14. The alternative submission of the learned counsel for
  the appellant is that when the learned Sessions Judge as well
  as the High Court has. only found that the conviction under
C Section 324 is sustainable, then the sentence of rigorous
  imprisonment of three years should not have been awarded.
  In this regard, it is fruitful to refer to the pronouncement in Santa
  Singh v. The State of Punjab 2 wherein Bhagwati, J. (as his
  Lordship then was), speaking for the Court, while interpreting
D the words· used in Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure, adverted to the concept of proper sentence and
  opined thus: -
         "...... a proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors
E        such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances -
         extenuating or aggravating - of the offence, the prior
         criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the
         offender, the record of the offender as to employment, the
         background of the offender with reference to education,
         home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional
F
         and mental condition of the offender, the prospects for the
         rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of the
         offender to a normal life in the community, the possibility
         of treatment or training of the offender, the possibility that
         the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the
G        offender or by others and the current community need, if
         any, for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type
         of offence. These are factors which have to be taken into
        _account by the court in deciding upon the appropriate
                   .
H 2. (1976) 4 sec 190.
     GOPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                       115
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
      sentence, and, therefore, the legislature felt that, for this   A
      purpose, a separate stage should be provided after
      conviction when the court can hear the accused in regard
      to these factors bearing on sentence and then pass proper
      sentence on the accused."
                                                                      B
     The aforesaid principle has been followed in many a
dictum of this Court.

      15. In Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 3 this Court
reiterated the principle by stating that the punishment must be
appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence            C
committed. Speaking about the concept of sentencing, the
Court observed thus: -

      "15. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt
      the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual         0
      matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern
      where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it
                1



      warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each
      case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was
      planned and committed, the motive for commission of the         E
      crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons
      used and all other attending circumstances are relevant
      facts which would enter into the area of consideration.

      16. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence
      having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner       F
      in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing
      courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and
      circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and
      proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the
      gravity of the offence."                                        G
     In the said case, there was a fracture of bone and the trial
Court had convicted the appellant therein under Section 308
of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
3.   (201 O) 12 sec 532.                                              H
    116         $UPREME COURT REPORTS              . [2013] 4 S.C.R. ·


A for two years.
        16. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another v. State of
    Gujarat and. Others, 4 the Court has observed' thus:
                 "The law regulate~ social interest~. arbitrates
          conflicting claims and demands. Security. of persons· and
          property of the people is a11 essential function ·of the State.
          It could be achieved through ·instrumentality of criminal law.
          Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living
          law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts·
          ~re requir-ed to. mould the sentencing system to meet the .
c
         .challenges. The contagion of lawlessness.would undermine
          social order and lay it in ruir:is: ·Protection of society and
          stamping out criminal proclivity must be the -object of law .
          which must be .achieved by imposing appropriate
          sentence. There.fore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice
D                   •I       .       •         •               •


          of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the
          society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated
          that: "State of criminal law continues to be - as it should·
          be -a decisive reflection of s'ocial consciousness of
          society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law
E         should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence
          based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing
          process be stern where it should be, and tempered with
          mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and· given
          circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the
F         manner in which it was planned and committ~d. the motive
          for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused,
          the nature ·of weapons u~ed and all ot~er attending
          circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the
          area of consideration".
G
        17. Recently, this Court in Guru Basavaraj v. State of
    Karnataka, 5 while discussing the concept of appropriate
    sentence has expressed that:
    4.   c2oos) 2 sec 359.
H   5.   c2012) a sec 734.
    GOPAL SINGH v. STATE OF VTTARAKHAND                       117
              [OIPAK MISRA, 'i]
          "It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate       A·
    ·sentence· is imposed regard being had to the commission
     ofthe ·crime and its impact on the social order .. The cry of
     the collective for justice which includes .a9equate
     punishment cannot be lightly ignored."
                                                                      B
       18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society.
 While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in ttie mind,
 simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime
 and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle
 of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in r~spect of a C
 criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately · ·
 excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant
 discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by
 certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the
 antecedents of the accused, the tac.tum of age, the potentiality
.of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his 0
 reformation and to lead an acceptable life i.n the prevalent
 milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or
 nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time iri the commission of ·
 the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in· mind
 the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties. E
 and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the
 value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors.
 Needless to emphasize, these are certain illustrative aspects
 put forth In a.condensed manner. We may hasten to add that
 there can neither be a strait-jacket formula nor a solvable theory F
 in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependant on the facts
 of the case and rationalized Judicial discretion. Neither the
 personal perception of a Judge nor self-'adhered· moralistic
 vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed· to
 have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be G .
 thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be
 treated with leniency solely on·the ground of discretion vested·
  in a Court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in
 which the crime has been committed and other concomitant
                                                                      H
    118         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have
  been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On
  such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The
  discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be
  embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment.
B
       19. A Court, while imposing sentence, has to keep in view
  the various complex matters in mind. To structure a
  methodology relating to sentencing is difficult to conceive of.
  The legislature in its wisdom has conferred discretion on the
C Judge wh~ is guided by certain rational parameters, regard
  been had to the factual scenario of the case. In certain spheres
  the legislature has not conferred that discretion and in such
  circumstances, the discretion is conditional. In respect of certain
  offences, sentence can be reduced by giving adequate special
  reasons. The special reasons have to rest on real special
D circumstances. Hence, the duty of Court in such situations
  becomes a complex one. The same has to be performed with
  due reverence for Rule of La, the collective conscience on one
  hand and the doctrine of proportionality, principle of reformation
  and other concomitant factors on the other. The task may be
E onerous but the same has to be done with total empirical
  rationality sans any kind of personal philosophy or individual
  experience or any a-priori notion.

         20. Keeping in view the aforesaid analysis, we would refer
F to the view in respect of sentence this Court had imposed
   under Section 324 of IPC, regard being had to the concept of
   appropriate sentence. In Dharma Pal and Others v. State of
   Punjab 6, while converting the conviction under Section 307 of
   the IPC to Section 324 of IPC, this Court thought it appropriate
G to sentence the convicts to one year rigorous imprisonment. Be
   it noted, the Court observed that though the injuries inflicted by
   the appellants therein were somewhat serious, yet the
  .conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was not made out.


H   6.   AIR 1993 SC 2484.
     GOPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                        119
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
      21. In Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar and Others v. State           A
of Gujarat7 , while this Court took note of the fact that the injury
was caused by pellet, the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC
were not satisfied and, accordingly, the Court converted the
offence under Section 324 and sentenced the accused to
undergo R. I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default,   B
S.I. for one month.

     22. In Para Seenaiah and Another v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Another8, regard being had to the obtaining
factual matrix therein, the sentence of rigorous _imprisonment         c
of one year under Section 324 of IPC with a fine of Rs.
1,000/- and, in default, imprisonment for three months was held
to be justified.

      23. At this juncture, we may repeat at.the cost of repetition
that imposition of sentence, apart from the illustrations which        D
have been stated to be mitigating factors would depend upon
many a other factors which will depend/vary from case to case.
The legislature in respect of an offence punishable under
Section-324 of the IPC has provided. punishment which may
extend to three years or with fine or with both. The legislative       E
intent, as we perceive, is to confer discretion on the judiciary
in .imposition of sentence in respect of such offence where it
has not provided the minimum sentence or made it conditional.
We have already highlighted that the discretion vested cannot
be allowed to roam in the realm of fancy but is required to be         F
embedded in rational concepts based on sound facts.

     24. In the case at hand, the doctor has not stated the injury
to be grievous but on the contrary, he has mentioned that there
is no fracture and only a muscle injury. The weapon used fits in
to the description as provided under Section 324 of IPC. The           G
occurrence has taken place almost 20 years back. The parties
are neighbours and there is nothing on record to show that the

7.   AIR 1996 SC 3236.
8.   (2012) 6 sec 800.                                                 H
    120     .SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.

A appellant had any criminal antecedents. Regard being ha·d to
    the totality of the facts and circumstances, w~ think it
  · appropriate that i~ the obtaining factual score, the sentence of
    rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 324 of IPC
    would be adequate. That apart, we are inclined to direct that
B · the appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards
    compensation as envisaged under Section 357 (3).of the Code
    to the. victim .. T~·e said amount shall be deposited before the
   ·learned trial Judge who shall disburse the same in favour of the
    victim qn proper identification.
c                                      .            '
       . 25. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the
    appeal stands dispo$ed of. ·                       ·

    B.B.B. ·                                  Appeal ·disposed of.