HAZARA SINGHversusRAJ KUMAR AND ORS.

                   [2013] 5 S.C.R. 979


                     HAZARA SINGH                              A
                             v.
                 RAJ KUMAR AND ORS.
         (Criminal Appeal· Nos. 603-604 of 2013)
                     APRIL 1'8, 2013
                                                               B
  [P. SATHASIVAM,· M.Y. EQBAL AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

    Penal code, 1860 - s. 307 - Conviction under - Trial
court sentenced two accused to 5 years RI and another two
accused to 3 years Rf - High Court in appeal upheld the C
conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period already
undergone - Held: conviction upheld - Reduction of
sentence by High Court without appreciating the nature of
offence, grievous injuries of witnesses/Victims, is
unsustainable.                                             D

     Sentence/Sentencing - Sentencing policy - It is duty of
the court to consider all the relevant factors to impose an
appropriate sentence - The punishment awarded should be
directly proportionate to the nature and magnitude of the      E
offence - Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to the Justice system and undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law.

     Respondents (the 4 accused persons) were
prosecuted for attempting murder of 3 persons, including F
the appellant-complaint. They were charged u/s 148, 149,
323, 324, 435, 447 and 307 IPC. The trial court convicted
them. For the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC, accused
'P'and '8' were sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and
accused 'K' and 'L' were sentenced to undergo RI for 3 G
years. All the accused were imposed with a fine of Rs.
10,000/- with default clause. The accused persons
preferred criminal appeal, whereas the appellant-
complainant preferred Criminal Revision for
                            979                                H
    980      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013) 5 S.C.R.


A enhancement of sentence.
        High Court dismissed the revision, but partly allowed
    the appeal of the accused person by reducing their
    sentence to already undergone. Hence the present appeal
    by one of the complainants,
8
        The question for consideration before this court was
    whether the High Court was justified in reducing the
    sentence awarded by trial court , to already undergone.

c         Allowing the appeal, the Court
        HELD: 1.1. The maximum punishment provided u/s.
    307 IPC is imprisonment for life or a term which may
    extend to 10 years. Although Section .307 does not
  expressly state the minimum sentence to be imposed, it
D is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant
  factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The
  legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this
  en9rmous discretion in the sentencing policy, which
  must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The
E punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to
  the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The
  benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the
  judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict. [Para 6]
  [986·F·H]
F
       1.2. In operating the sentencing system, law should
  adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on
  factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each
  case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was
G planned and committed, the motive for commission of the
  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.
  Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would
H do more harm to the justice system to undermine the
           HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR                     981


public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is duty of every   A
court to award proper sentence having regard to the
nature of the offence and the manner in which it was
executed or committed. The Court must not only keep in
view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the
society at large while considering the imposition of            B
appropriate punishment. [Para 13] [990-E-G]

   ' Shai/esh Jasvantbhai and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and
Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 359: 2006 (1) SCR 477; Ahmed Hussein
Va/i Mohammed Saiyed and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat (2009) C
7 SCC 254: 2009 (8) SCR 719; Jameel vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 532: 2009 (15) SCR 712; Guru
Basavaraj@ Benne Settapa vs. State of Kamataka (2012) 8
SCC 734: 2012 (8) SCR 189; Gopa/ Singh vs. State of
Uttarakhand JT 2013 (3) SC 444 - relied on.
                                                            D
     2. The reduction of sentence passed by the High
Court without appreciating, the nature of offence,
grievous injuries of witnesses/victims, is unsustainable.
The High Court failed to take note of the fact that as per
the medical evidence, Injury No.1 shown in supplement E
MLR on the person of appellant-complainant was found
to be grievous. Injury No.2 on the person of complainant
'P' was also found to be grievous whereas Injury Nos. 1
and 2 caused to complainant 'M' one was declared as
dangerous to life and it is also on record that injured F
complainant 'M' had also lost his speech. From the
statements of eye-witnesses coupled with the medical
evidence, it is proved that the accused caused injuries
in the manner as propounded by the prosecution. While
dismissing the revision for enhancement of sentence at G
the instance of the appellant-Complainant and ordering
reduction of sentence, the High Court has assigned only
two reasons, viz., (1) if the accused are sent behind bars,
it will revive the old enmity between the parties in the
village and (2), the accused also suffered agony of long
                                                            H
    982       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013) 5 S.C.R.

A trial/appeal for the last 14 years. The courts cannot let the
  accuse(f go scot-free on mere suspicion of eruption of
  enmity ~eiween the families. This ground is irrelevant for
  the purpose of determining the sentence to be awarded
  to the accused. High Court also failed to appreciate that
B the reduction of sentence merely on the ground of long
  pending trial is not justifiable. The High Court has failed
  to take note of a very relevant fact that with regard to the
  offence u/s. 307 IPC, appellant-accused 'R' has been
  charge sheeted individually for causing grievous injury
c on the head of the complainant 'M' with an intention or
  knowledge and under such circumstances, if by that act,
  he had caused death of 'M', he would have been guilty
  of murder. Therefore, the sentence Imposed by the High
  Court is set aside and the sentence imposed by the trial
  court is restored. [Paras 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26] [999-
0
  C-G; 1002-C-D, G-H; 1003-B]
        Sadha Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab (1985) 3 SCC
    225; State ofU.P. vs. Nankau Prasad Misra and Ors. (2005)
    1o sec 503 - relied on.
E
                        Case Law Reference:
          2006 (1) SCR 477         relied on           Para 8
          2009 (8) SCR 719         relied on           Para 9
F         2009 (15) SCR 712        relied on           Para 10
          ~



          2012 (8) SCR 189         relied on           Para 11
          JT 2013 (3) SC 444       relied on           Para 12

G         (1985) 3 sec 225         relied on           Para 21
          (2005) 1o sec 503        relied on           Para 22
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    Nos. 603..604 of 2013.
H
            HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR                         983


    From the Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2008 of the High           A
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Revision No.
416 of 1997 & Crl. Appeal No. 4-SB of 1997.
    R.C. Kohli, S.S. Shamshery, Shubhashis R. Soren, V.M.
Vishnu, Bharat Sood, Asha Kochhar for the Appellant.
                                                                     B
    Naresh Bakshi, Ashwani Antil, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi for the
Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     P.SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.                              c
     2. These appeals are directed against the common final
judgment and order dated 03.11.2008 passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 4-SB of 1997 and Criminal Revision No. 416 of 1997,
whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the        D
respondents herein by reducing the sentence awarded to them
to the period already undergone and dismissed the revision
preferred by the appellant herein.·
     3. Brief facts:                                                 E
        (a) According to the prosecution, on 25.04.1994, Dr. P.
  Aggarwal, Medical Qfficer, C.H.C. Ladwa, sent a ruqa to the
  Police Station informing that Mehma Singh, Piara Singh and
  Hazara Singh have been admitted to the hospital after allegedly
  having received injuries in a fight. Mehma Singh was serious       F
  and had been referred to the L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra.
 After receipt of the said ruqa, on 26.04.1994, Raj Pal Singh,
  S.I., In-charge Police Station, Babain, went to the hospital and
· recorded the statements of the injured.
                                                                     G
     {b) Hazara Singh, in his statement, alleged that he was a
resident of village Kassithal and was an agriculturist. That about
617 years back, he had· purchased 6 kanals of disputed
agricultural land in village Rampura from one Sat Pal,
possession of which was delivered to him. He along with his          H
                                                                      i,   •




        984      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.


    A   family members harvested wheat crop from that land and had
        kept it in their adjoining field.

              (c) On 25.04.1994, at about 6.30 p.m., his brother Piara
        Singh was ploughing the above said land, with the help of a
        tractor, while he along with his father was collecting the
    8
        harvested wheat crop in the adjoining field. At that time, they
        suddenly, heard the noise of "bachao bachao" from his brother
        Piara Singh. Thereafter, he noticed Piara Singh jumping from
        the tractor and raising alarm coming towards them and Kesha
    C Ram and his brother, along with 5/6 persons, were lifting the
1       harvested wheat crop and placing it on the tractor. Raj Kumar
j       was pouring diesel on the tractor out of the can held by him.
        Then Kesha Ram lit the fire on the tractor and Lal Chand and
        Bhag Singh ran after his brother Piara Singh and encircled him.
        They started inflicting lathi blows to his brother. He along with
    D . his father went near their brother by raising alarm. When they
        reached near their brother, Kesha Ram inflicted gandasi blow
        over his head but he rescued it by lifting his right hand which
        resulted in an injury in the middle of the right thumb and fingers.
        Simultaneously, Annu and Tinna started inflicting lathi blows
    E upon him. In the meanwhile, Lal Chand, Raj Kumar and Bhag
        Singh started inflicting injuries on his father and caused grievous
        injuries. On hearing their alarm, Lachman Singh and Bhagat
        Singh were attracted from the nearby fields. On seeing them,
        all the accused with their respective weapons, i.e., lathis and
    F gandasis ran away. All three of them became unconscious due
        to the said injuries. When he regained consciousness, he found •
         himself in the hospital, Ladwa.

           (d) Upon this information, an FIR under Sections 148, 149,
    G 323, 324, 435 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
      "IPC") was registered. After receipt of the opinion of the doctor
      that the injuries sustained. were dangerous to life, an offence
      under Section 307 IPC was also added.

          (e) After obtaining medical reports and completion of
    H investigation, all the accused were arrested and on their
HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 985


disclosure statements, weapons of offence were recovered and A
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After hearing
the parties, all the accused totaling six were charge sheeted
for the above-said offences. Out of the six accused, two were
held to be minors and were directed to be tried by the Juvenile.
Court. The remaining four accused (respondent Nos. 1 to 4 B
herein) pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

    (f) The Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, by order
dated 21.12.1996, in Sessions Case No. 44of1994 convicted
all the accused persons, namely, Raj Kumar, Bhag Singh,· C
Kesho Ram and Lal Chand for the offence punishable under
Section 307 IPC and sentenced Raj Kumar and Bhag Singh
to undergo RI for 5 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default,
to further undergo RI for 1 year, whereas Kesho Ram and Lal
Chand to undergo RI for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for 9 months. In addition to the D
above, all the accused persons were convicted and sentenced
under different heads.

     (g) Aggrieved by the said order of conviction' and sentence,
the accused-respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4-SB           E
of 1997 whereas the appellant preferred Criminal Revision No.
416 of 1997 for enhancement of sentence before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

     (h) The High Court, by impugned order dated 03.11.2008,
dismissed the revision filed by the appellant and partly allowed
                                                                     F
the appeal filed by the accused by reducing the sentence to
the period already undergone.

    (i) Being dis-satisfied with the judgment of the High Court,
the appellant has preferred these appeals by way of special          G
leave before this Court.

    4. Heard Mr. R.C. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant,
Ms. Naresh Bakshi, learned counsel for the State of Haryana

                                                                    ' H
    986       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   and Mr. Ashwani Anti!, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1
    to 4.

         5. The only point for consideration in these appeals is
    whether the High Court is justified in reducing the sentence
    awarded to the accused persons to the period already
8
    undergone. In view of the limited question relating to sentence
    alone urged before the High Court, there is no difficulty in
    confirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC, accordingly,
    we do so.
c        6. In order to understand the reasoning of the High Court
    for reduction of sentence, it is but proper to refer Section 307
    IPC which reads thus:

          "307. Attempt to murder.- Whoever does any act with
D         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
E
          to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is
          hereinabove mentioned."

  From the above, it is clear that the maximum punishment
  provided therein is imprisonment for life or a term which may
F extend ~o 10 years. Although Section 307 does not expressly
  state the minimum sentence to be imposed, it is the duty of the
  Courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an
  appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the
  judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy,
G which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The
  punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the
  nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of
  proportionate sentencing can assist the judges in arriving at a
  fair and impartial verdict.
H
HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 987


Sentencing Policy:                                                   A

     7. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the
sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he
has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of
the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role     8
of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.

     8. The factual matrix of this case is similar to the facts and
circumstances of the case in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and
Another vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 2 SCC 359,
wherein the accused was convicted under Section 307/114 IPC C
and for the same the trial Court sentenced the accused for 1O
years. However, the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction,
reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. In this
case, this Court held that the sentence imposed is not
proportionate to the offence committed, hence not sustainable D
in the eyes of law. This Court; observed thus:

    "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting
    claims and demands. Security of persons and property of
    the people is an essential function of the State. It could be    E
    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
    are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the
    challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine
                                                                     F
    social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and
    stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law,
    which must be achieved by imposing appropriate
    sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice
    of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the
    society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated          G
    that: "State of criminal law continues to be - as it should
    be -a decisive reflection of social consciousness of
    society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law
    should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence
    based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing          H
         988       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R


     A         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
               manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive
               for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused,
     B         the nature of weapons used and all other attending
               circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the
               area of consideration.

               8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate
               sentence would do more harm to the justice system to
'. c           undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and
               society could not long endure under such serious threats.
               It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper
               sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and
               the manner in which it was executed or committed etc:
     D

·1
            9. This position was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of
       this Court in Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and
       Anr. vs. State of Gujarat, {2009) 7 SCC 254, wherein it was
     E observed as follows:-

               "99 ..... The object of awarding appropriate sentence should
               be to protect the society and to deter the criminal from
               achieving the avowed object to law by imposing
               appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would
     F         operate the sentencing system so as tQ impose such
               sentence, which reflects the conscience of the society and
               the sentencing process has to be stem where it should be.
               Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or
               taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of
     G         time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter
               productive in the long run and against the interest of
               society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by
               string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.

     H         100. Justice demands that courts should impose
HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 989

    punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect       A
    public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only
    keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime and the
    society at large while considering the imposition of
    appropriate punishment. The court will be failing in its duty
    if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which      B
    has been committed not only against the individual victim
    but also against the society to which both the criminal and
    the victim belong."

     In this case, the court further goes to state that meager
sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without         C
considering the degree of the offence will be counter productive
in the long run and against the interest of society.

     10. In Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC
532, this Court reiterated the principle by stating that the        D
punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity
of the offence committed. Speaking about the concept of
sentencing, this Court observed thus: -

    "15. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt       E
    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 manner in which it ~s
    planned and committed, the motive for commission of the
                                                                    F
    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     G
having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner 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."             H
    990       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013) 5 S.C.R.


A        11. In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapalls. State of
    Kamataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734, while discussing the concept
    of appropriate sentence, this Court expressed that:

          "It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence
B         is imposed regard being had to the commission of the
          crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the
          collective for justice, which includes adequate punishment
          cannot be lightly ignored."

       12. Recently, this Court in Gopal Singh vs. State of
C Uttarakhand JT 2013 (3) SC 444 held as under:-

          "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society.
          While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the
          mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality
o         between the crime and punishment cannot be totally
          brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the
          bedroc~ of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence .... ."

       13. We reiterate that in operating the sentencing system, .
  law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based
E on factual matrix. 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
  crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used
  and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which
F would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate
  that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do
  more harm to the justice system to undermine the public
  confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to
  award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the
G offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.
  The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of
  the crime but also the society at large while considering the
  imposition of appropriate punishment.

          14. With these principles, let us consider whether the
H
HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 991


reasons rendered by the impugned judgment falls within the            A
parameter of the established principles. The relevant paragraph
in the impugned judgment are as under:-

     " ...... Stress is that Raj Kumar has undergone 14 months
     of s~ntence and so as Bhag Singh six months of sentence          8
     whereas Kehso Ram and Lal Chand have undergone two
     months' sentence each and they are facing the agony of
     trial since 1994. The purpose of criminal law justice is to
     bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society and
   · also to giv~ an opportunity to an erring individual to reform
     himself. In appropriate cases, leniency be shown and             C
     opportunity is required to be given to the accused to reform
     themselves by adopting reformative approach. It is not in
     dispute that the parties are co-villagers. It has also_ not
     been indicated that during all these years, they had any
     further tiff among themselves. If the appellants are sent        D
     behind bars, it will revive the old enmity between the
     parties in the village. They have already suffered agony of
    ·long trial/appeal for the last 14 years. Therefore it would
     be expedient in the interest of justice to take a lenient view
     that the sentence awarded to he accused deserves to be           E
      modified and the injured complainants can be granted
     compensation"
      15. Now, let us analyze the reasoning mentioned in the
impugned judgment for reduction of sentence. It was mentioned
                                                                      F
before the High Court that Raj Kumar has undergone 14 months
of sentence, Bhag Singh has undergone six months of
sentence, Kesho Ram and Lal Chand have undergone two
months of sentence each. It was also noted by the High Court
that they were facing the agony of trial since 1994. In addition      G
to the same, the High Court has noted that both the parties are
co~villagers and during pendency of these proceedings, they
had no further tiff among themselves. If the accused are sent
behind bars, it will revive the old enmity between the accused
and the victim's family. Mentioning these facts, the High Court
has concluded that in the interest of justice, it is but proper to    H
    992       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2013) 5 S.C.R.


A take a lenient view and that the sentence awarded to the
    accused deserves to be modified and the injured complainants
    be granted compensation. By saying so, the High Court
    reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by them
    and directed the accused to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each
B · as compensation to an the three injured persons, namely,
    Mehma Singh, Piara Singh and Hazara Singh within three
    months from the date of its order, failing which the appeal filed
    by them shall be treated as dismissed.

        16. For the reasons best known to it, the State has not
C challenged the said order of the High Court before this Court.
  On the other hand, one of the complainants', namely, Hazara
  Singh has filed the present appeals by way of special leave
  petitions. We have already concluded that the conviction relating
  to the offence punishable under Section 307 is confirmed, in
D fact, it was not at all challenged. In the present appeals, learned
  counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that
  considering the serious nature of the injuries, period of
  treatment, agony undergone, reduction of sentence to the
  period already undergone i.e. for a period of few months is not
E justifiable and the decision of the High Court is to be set aside
  and the order of the trial Court is to be restored.

         17. It is not in dispute that three persons were injured at
  the hands of the accused persons and all of them were
F examined by the doctors. Their injuries were evidenced by
  certificates issued by the doctors, who treated them, which read
  ttius:

          "PW-1 is Dr. K.K. Chawla, Medical Officer, L.N.J.P.
          Hospital, Kurukshetra, who has proved x-ray report Ex.PA
G         with regard· to Hazara Singh and has opined that as per
          x-ray of left knee, it showed fracture of patilla left with .regard
          to remaining 5 injuries, i.e. X-ray of skull, left thigh, left
          forearm, right hand and left shoulder of.the injured, he has
          stated that no bonny injury was found. With regard to injured
H         Piara Singh, he has stated that X-ray skull showed no
HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 993


   bonny injury. Simultaneously, x-ray chest right forearm and   A
   left ankle showed no bonny injury; However, there was
   fracture of left scapula as per x-ray of left shoulder. The
   report in this behalf is Ex.PB.

   PW-2, Dr. P. Aggarwal, Medical Officer, C.H.C. Ladwa,         B
   has examined Mehma Singh on 25.04.1994 at 9.25 p.m.
   and found the following injuires on his person:-

    1.    Lacerated wound 1-1/2 cm x % cm x bone deep on
          the left parietal region, 3 cm posterior to anterior
          hair line. Surrounding parts in diameter of 8 cm was   c
          swollen. Swelling was boggy in nature. X-ray and
         ·surgeon's opinion was advised.

    2.    Left eye was swollen and reddish blue in colour.
          Both lids were swollen. Swelling was extending upto    D
          forehead. X-ray and eye surgeon's opinion was
          advised.

    3.    Contusion 10 cm x 1 cm each two in number on
          back of left side of chest situated perpendicular on
          each other. X-ray was advised.                         E

    4.    Contusion 12 cm x 2 cm on outer side of left side
          of abdomen x-ray and surgeon's opinion was
          advised.
                                                                 F
    5.    Lower half of left fore-arm was swollen. Crepitus
          was present. X-ray was advised.

    6.    Two contusions on left buttock, surrounding parts
          swollen, x-ray was advised.
                                                                 G
    7.    Abrasion 1 cm x % cm on right side of nose bridge.
          X-ray was advised.

   He also examined Hazara Singh, son of Mehma Singh at
   9.50 p.rn. and found the following injuries on his person:
                                                                 H
    994         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A          1.    Lacerated wound 3 cm x % cm into bone deep on
                 left parietal region situated anterior posteriorily, 3
                 cm posterior to anterior hair line. Fresh bleeding
                 was present. X-ray and surgeon's opinion was
                 advised.
B
           2.    Contusion 12 cm x 3 cm on antro lateral side of
                 middle of left thigh. Surrounding parts were swollen.
                 X-ray was advised.

           3.    Swelling was present on middle half of left fore-arm.
c                X-ray was advised.

           4.     Incised wound 1 cm x % cm, x muscle deep on outer
                  side of right palm in between index finger and
                 .thumb. Margins were cleancuf. Fresh bleeding was
D                 present. X-ray was advised.

           5.    Abrasions 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on back of right
                 shoulder. Movements were painful. X-ray was
                 advised.

E          6.    Lacerated wound 1 cm x % cm x skin deep on right
                 sole near base of second toe.

          That during examination of the patient routine checking on
          26.04.1994, he found one more injury on the person of
          Hazara Singh as under:•
F
          "There was faint reddish swelling, diffused all around the
          left knee. Patient was complaining of severe pain. Injury
          was tender to touch. Movements were painful and
          restricted. X-ray left knee was advised."
G
          All the injuries on the person of Mehma Singh were found
          to have been caused by blunt weapon. All the injuries
          except injury No.4 on the person of Hazara Singh was
          found to have been caused by Dhmt weapon. Injury No.4
H         was caused by sharp weapon.
HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 995


   That this doctor witness also examined Piara Singh at           A
   10.05 p.m. and found the following 6 injuries on his person:-

    1.    Lacerated wound 1-1/2 cm x % cm x bone deep on
          middle of scalp with fresh bleeding situated 12 cm
          posterior to anterial hair-line. X-ray and surgeon's     B
          opinion was advised.

    2.    Reddish swelling, diffused on back of left shoulder.
          Movements of shoulder were very painful.
          Tenderness was present. X-ray was advised.
                                                                   c
    3.    Contusion 18 cm x 2 cm on lateral side of left side
          of chest and abdomen situated vertically.

    4.    Abrasion 4 cm x 1 cm on back of right side of chest
          surrounding parts were swollen. X-ray was advised.
                                                                   D
    5.    Swelling diffused present on lower 3rd of right
          forearm. X-ray was advised.

    6.    Diffused swelling near left medial mallelous was
          present. Movement at ankle joint was painful. X-ray      E
          was advised.

   All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Medical
   Report in this behalf is Ex. PE and diagram showing seat
   of injuries in this behalf is Ex. PE/1.
                                                                   F
   This witness has further proved his report Ex. PG to the
   effect that the injury No.1 shown in supplementary M.L.R.
   i.e. Ex. PH on the person of Hazara Singh was found to
   be grievous. He also proved report Ex. PK to the effect
   that injury No.2 on the person of Piara Singh, was also         G
   grievous and rest were simple. He has also stated that on
   28.04.1994, he received operation note of Mehma Singh
   from P.G.I. Chandigarh, whereupon, he sent intimation Ex.
   PL to the Police and declared injuries No.1 and 2 as
   dangerous to life.                                              H
..
         996       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.
..
     A         That PW-3 Dr. P. Vara Prasad, S.M.O., Casualty, P.G.I.
               Chandigarh has proved his endorsement Ex. PM/1 and Ex.
..             PM/3 to the effect that on 02:06.1994 and 22.07.1994,
               when the police wanted his opinion, Mehma Singh injured
               was unfit for statement.
     B
               That PW-15, Hazara Singh injured, PW-16 Jaspal Singh,
               eye-witness, PW-17 Piara Singh.injured and PW-19,
               Mehma Singh injured, have broadly supported the case of
               the prosecution."

     C After analyzing the above injuries with reference to the specific
       evidence by the doctors concerned and the certificates issued,
       the trial Court came to the following conclusion:-

               "a) In the present case, the prosecution has been able to
     D         show that the witness was unable to speak during .
               investigation. Even, Dr. Ashwani Kumar Chaudhary, while
               appearing in the witness box·as PW-18, on 02.04.1996,
               has stated after examining the witness orally in the Court,
               that his speech was blurred. When Mehma Singh appeared
               as PW-19,_ he was feeling difficulty in sp~aking but since
     E         he could be understood, what he wanted to say, his
               statement was recorded. The perusal of his ·statement
               further shows that during his examination, he was feeling
               difficulty in speaking the name of the accused and he was
               allowed to touch their person to depose about the part
     F         played by each of the accused. As per the case of the
               prosecution, the witness was injured in the occurrenee and
               as such no prejudice was caused to the accused in
               examining the witness for the first time in Court.

     G         (b) That in view of the statements of these eye-witnesses
               coupled with the medical evidence, it is proved that the
               accused caused injuries in the manner propounded by the
               prosecution. Although, the prosecution has discharged its·.
               onus in proving its case, yet, to analyze the defence, at this
     H
HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 997


   stage, would be relevant for the purpose of deciding the        A
   complicity.

   (c) Resultantly, thus, I hold that on the date of occurrence,
   the injured party were in possession of the disputed land.
   The occurrence took place in the manner propounded by           B
   the prosecution and further that the accused have not acted
   in the right of private defence and property.

   (d) In this view of the matter, and the fact that all the
   accused formed an unlawful assembly and entered into
   the field belonging to the injured and being in their           C
   possession, they have committed an offence punishable
   under Sections 148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

   (e) The version of burning of the tractor by the accused in
   furtherance of their common object of the assembly, has         D
   been found proved and as such, they have also committed
   an offence punishable under Section 435 read with 149
   of the Indian Penal Code.

   (f) It is proved that Bhag Singh inflicted injury with blunt
   weapon on the left shoulder of Piara Singh. Copy of X-ray E
   report in this behalf is Ex. PB which shows fracture of bone.
   He has thus committed an offence punishable under
   Section 325 and the other accused are also liable for an
   offence under Section 325 read with 149 of the Indian~·
   Penal Code.                                                   F

   (g) In view of the M.L.R. of Hazara Singh, injury No. 4 was
   caused by sharp edged weapon i.e. gandasi by Kesha
   Ram and he himself has held liable for an offence under
   Section 324 of IPC and the other accused being members          G
   of an unlawful assembly are liable for an offence under
   Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
   Code.

  (h) It is also proved that all the accused voluntarily caused
                             .
  simple hurt to Mehma Singh, Piara Singh and Hazara               H
    998       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A         Singh and held themselves liable for an offence under
          Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
          Code.

          (i) With regard to the offence under Section 307 IPC, Raj
          Kumar accused has been charge-sheeted individually, for
B
          causing the injury on the head of Mehma Singh with an
          intention or knowledge and under such circumstances, that
          if by that act, he had caused death of said Mehma Singh,
          he would have been guilty of murder. The other accused
          have been charge-sheeted with the aid of Section 149 of
c         IPC Bhag Singh accused, was also individually charged
          for offence under Section 307 IPC and other accused were
          also charged with the aid of Section 149 IPC for the act of
          Bhag Singh.

D       18. The trial Court, after detailed analysis of the evidence
    of doctors and the certificates issued, convicted the above
    accused persons and passed the following sentence:

          "a) Accused Raj -Kumar U/s 307 IPC - RI for 5 years and
          fine of Rs.10,000/- in default further RI of 1 year.
E
          (b) Accused Bhag Singh U/s 307 IPC- RI for 5 years and
          fine of Rs.10,000/- in default further RI for 1 year.

          (c) Accused Kesho Ram U/s 307 IPC- RI of 3 years and
F         fine of Rs.10,000/- in default further RI for 9 months

          (d) Accused Lal Chand U/s 307 IPC - RI of 3 years and
          fine of Rs.10,000/- in default further RI for 9 months.

          Addition to the above all accused respondents were
G         awarded following sentence:-

          U/s 325 IPC - RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in
          default further sentence for 6 months RI.

          U/s 324 IPC - RI for 1 year
H
HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 999


    U/s 447 IPC - RI for 1 month                                      A

     \J/s 323 IPC - RI for 6 months.

     U/s 148 IPC - RI for one year.

     U/s 435 IPC - RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each       B
     in default further sentence of RI for 6 months."

     19. It is clear that the High Court failed to take note of the
fact that as per the medical evidence, Injury No.1 shown in
supplement MLR on the person of Hazara Singh was found to             C
be grievous. Injury No.2 on the person of Piara Singh was also
found to be grievous whereas Injury Nos. 1 and 2 caused to
Mehma Singh one was declared as dangerous to life and it is
also on record that injured Mehma Singh had also lost his
speech.
                                                                      D
      20. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the
appellant, the High Court failed to appreciate that the trial Court
has come to the conclusion that in view of the statement of
injured eye-witnesses coupled with medical evidence, it is
proved that the accused caused injuries in the manner explained       E
by the prosecution and passed appropriate sentence to the
accused respondents. We have already stated that while
dismissing the revision for enhancement of sentence at the
instance of the present appellant and partly allowing the order
of reduction of sentence, the High Court has assigned only two        F
reasons, viz., "one, if the accused are sent behind bars, it
will revive the old enmity between the parties in the village
and secondly, the accused also suffered agony of long
trial/appeal for the last 14 years."

     21. It is unfortunate that the High Court failed to appreciate G
that the reduction of sentence merely on the ground of long
pending trial is not justifiable. In Sadha Singh and Another vs.
State of Punjab, (1985) 3 SCC 225, a three Judge Bench of
this Court, while considering the identical issue which also
arose for an offence under Section 307 and reduction of H
    1000    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   substantive sentence by the High Court, held as under:-

        "5 .... We must confess that what ought to be the proper
        sentence in a given case is left to the discretion of the trial
        court, which discretion has to be exercised on sound
        judicial principles. Various relevant circumstances which
B
        have a bearing on the question of sentence have to be
        kept in view. Before deciding the quantum of sentence the
        learned Sessions Judge has to hear both the sides as
        required by the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal
        Procedure.
c
        6. In an appeal against the conviction, it is open to the High
        Court to alter or modify or reduce the sentence after
        confirming conviction. If the High Court is of the opinion that
        the sentence is heavy or unduly harsh or requires to be
D       modified, the same must be done on well recognised
        judicial dicta. Therefore, we may first notice the reasons
        which appealed to the learned Judge to reduce the
        substantive sentence awarded to the appellants to
        sentences undergone."

E While rejecting the similar reasons as stated by the High Court
  · in the present case, the following conclusion arrived at by this
   Court are relevant:

        "7 ..... The learned Judge then took notice of the fact that
F       three co-accused of the appellants were given benefit of
        doubt by the trial court and acquitted them although they
        were also attributed causing of some injuries. If acquittal
        of some co-accused casts a cloud of doubt over the entire
        prosecution case, the whole case may be rejected. But we
G       fail to understand how acquittal of some of the accused
        can have any relevance to the question of sentence
        awarded to those who are convicted. In this case the
        prosecution submitted that these two appellants alone
        were armed with guns. Then the learned Judge observes
H       that no useful purpose, will be served bv sending the
      HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 1001


         appellants to prison again to undergo the unexpired period      A
         of their sentence. We repeatedly asked why this
         indulgence and waited for answer in vain. If someone is
         enlarged on bail during the pendency of appeal and when
         the appeal is dismissed sending him back to jail is going
         to raise qualms of conscience in the Judge, granting of bail    B
         pending appeal would be counter-productive. One can pre-
         empt or forestall the decision by obtaining an order of bail.

         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        C
         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            D
         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             E
         which is punishable with imprisonment for life and the
         sentence to be awarded is imprisonment for three mC~h.s,
         it is better not to award substantive sentence a__§..tf makes
         mockery of justice. Mr Jain said that the High·C.ourt has
         enhanced the fine and compensated the injured and,              F
         therefore, we should not enhance the sentence. Accepting
         such a submission would mean that if your pockets can
         afford, commit serious crime, offer to pay heavy fine and
         escape tentacles of law. Power of wealth need not extend
         to overawe court processes. Thus it appears that the High       G
         Court wrongly interfered with the order of sentence on
         wholly untenable and irrelevant grounds some of them not
         borne out by the record. In order, therefore, to avoid
         miscarriage of justice we must interfere and set aside the
.>:--"   sentence imposed by the High Court and restore the              H
. ~
    1002     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 5 S.C.R.

A       sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge which
        we hereby order. Both the appellants shall be taken into
        custody forthwith to suffer their sentence."
      22. Applying the same principles in State of U.P. vs.
B Nankau Prasad Misra and Others, (2005) 10 SCC 503, this
  Court set aside the judgment of the High Court reducing the
  sentence without adequate reasons.
         23. The second ground relied on by the High Court is that
  it will further the enmity between the families of victim and the
C accused. In our considered view, this ground is irrelevant for
  the purpose of determining the sentence to be awarded to the
  accused. The Courts cannot let the accused go scot-free on
  mere suspicion of eruption of enmity between the families.

D        '24. In our view, the reduction of sentence passed by the
    High Court without appreciating the nature of offence, grievous
    injuries of witnesses/victims, is unsustainable.
        25. In addition to the factual matrix discussed in the earlier
  paras, Dr. Ashwani Kumar Chaudhary (PW-18), after examining
E the witness Mehma Singh, (PW-19), has stated that his speech
  was blurred and he was feeling difficulty in speaking. We are
  satisfied that from the statements of eye-witnesses coupled with
  the medical evidence, it is proved that the accused caused
  injuries in the manner as propounded by the prosecution. It is
F also proved that Bhag Singh inflicted injury with a blunt weapon
  on the left shoulder of Piara Singh. Likewise, the M.L.R. of
  Hazara Singh proves that the injury was caused by a sharp-
  edged weapon i.e. gandasa by Kesho Ram. The High Court
  has failed to take note of a very relevant fact that with regard
G to the offence under Section 307 IPC, Raj Kumar has been
  charge sheeted individually for causing grievous injury on the
  head of Mehma Singh with an intention or knowledge and under
  such circumstances, if by that act, he had caused death of the
  said Mehma Singh, he would have been guilty of murder.
H
HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)1003


      26. Under these circumstances, we hold that the High Court    A
has wrongly interfered with the order of sentence on wholly
untenable and irrelevant grounds, some of them even not borne
out on record. To avoid miscarriage of justice, we must interfere
and accordingly, we set aside the sentence imposed by the
High Court and restore the sentence imposed by the trial Court.     B
All the respondents-accused, namely, Raj Kumar, Keshav Ram,
Lal Chand and Bhag Singh shall be taken into custody forthwith
to serve the remaining period of sentence as ordered by the
trial Court. The appeals are allowed.

K.K.T.                                        Appeals allowed.      c