JASBIR SINGHversusTARASINGHAND OTHERS

                    [2015] 1O S.C.R. 61 ·


                       JASBIR SINGH                           A
                             v.
                TARASINGHAND OTHERS
             (Criminal Appeal No. 1241 of 2015)
                                                              B
                   SEPTEMBER 21, 2015
       [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ARLIN MISHRA, JJ.]
        Sentence/Sentencing:.Appea/ by complainant against
 the alleged lenient view taken by High Court with regard to  c
the sentence - Conviction of respondents ulss. 466, 467,
468, 471, 120-8, /PC for committing forgery of documents-
Sentence imposed upon respondents-accused ranging from
 1 to 3 years - Challenge to the quantum of sentence -
Respondents underwent 4-5 months in custody- High Court D
reduced sentence to period already undergone -
 Complainant's appeal - Held: Unless there are mitigating
circumstances, the appellate/revisional court will not be
justified in arbitrarily reducing the sentence awarded by the
 trial court - When the appellatelrevisional court reduces the E
sentence, the factors leading to such reduction should be
reflected in the order- Punishment must be appropriate and
proportional to the gravity of the offence committed - In view
 thereof, impugned order is set aside and matter remitted to
High Court.                                                    F

      Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the
 High Court, the Court

       HELD: The prescribed maximum punishment for G
  offence under Section 466 of IPC is seven years and fine;
  under Section 467 of IPC, it is imprisonment for life or
. imprisonment for ten years and fine; under Section 468
  of IPC, it is seven years and fine and under Section 471
  of IPC, it is two years or with fine or both. The gravity of H
                               61
62         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 10S.C.R.


A the offence, the mitigating factors and circumstances like
  parties buying peace, parties settling the disputes and
  getting reconciled, victim subsequently becoming part
  of the family, victim showing interest in getting monetarily
  compensated, etc., the motive for commission of the
B crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed
  are factors that help the court to discern and decipher
  the appropriate purpose of punishment and to enter a
  satisfaction that justice has been done. Unless there are
  mitigating circumstances which were omitted to be noted
C by the trial court, the appellate/revisional court will not
  be justified in arbitrarily reducing the sentence awarded
  by the trial court. And in any case, when the appellate/
  revisional court reduces the sentence, the factors leading
  to such reduction should be reflected in the order. [Paras
0
  9 and 10] [65-C, E-H]

          Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC
          532: 2009 (15) SCR 712 - relied on.

E                       Case Law Reference

     2009 (15) SCR     712       relied on.            Para 11

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
F Appeal No. 1241 of2015.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2013 of the
     High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
     Revision No. 1072 of 2013.

G         Gagan Gupta for the Appellant.

           Jayant K. Sud, Addi. AG, Jasleen Chahal, Asst. A.G.,
     Ajay P. Tushir, K. K. Mohan, Kuldip Singh, forthe Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
      JASBIR SINGH v. fARASINGHAND OTHERS                         63


     KURIAN, J.: 1. Leave granted.                                A

      2 The de facto complainant has come up in appeal
aggrieved by the alleged lenient view taken by the High Court
in the impugned judgment with regard to the sentence.
      3. The party-respondents were tried under Sections 466, B
467, 468, 471, 1208 of the Indian Penal Code (45of1860)
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') for having committed a serious
offence of forgery of documents in order to grab the property
of one Harbans Singh. The trial court imposed the following
sentence:                                                         C
"Name of      Section      R.I.      Fine (Rs.)     In Default
Accused
 Partapa         4661PC           2 years   500/-   One month
                                                                  D
 Tara Singh      466/120-B        1 year    500/-   One month
                 467 IPC          3 years 1000/- Two months
                 468 IPC          3 years 1000/- Two months
                 471 IPC          2 years 500/-     One months    E
 Bhajan Singh 467 IPC             3 years 1000/- Two months
                 468 IPC          3 years 1000/- Two months
 Charan Dass 467 IPC              3 years 1000/- Two months
                                                                  F
                 468 IPC          3 years 1000/- Two months
 Dalbir Singh    467 IPC          3 years 1000/-     Two months
                 468 IPC          3 years 1OOOi- Two months"
     4. The appeal by the party-respondents was dismissed. G
In Revision, it appears the challenge was limited only to the
quantum of sentence. As a matter of fact, notice issued by this
Court is limited to the question of quantum of sentence only.
The party-respondents mainly contended on prolonged trial .
and their advanced age. To quote the relevant submissions:      H
64         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A         "... Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
          petitioners are facing agony of trial since registration of
          the FIR i.e. 25.6.1996 and they are in the age group of
          45 to 58. Learned counsel further contends that the
          petitioners are first offenders, they are neither previous
B         convicts nor are having any criminal background. Learned
          counsel prays that keeping in view the age of the
          petitioners and also the fact that they have already
          suffered a lot of mental agony as they are facing trial since
          1996, their sentence, therefore, be reduced to the period
c         already undergone by them .... "
          5. The High Court passed the following order:
          "Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
          the parties and have also gone through the contents of
D         the FIR.
          Keeping in view the submissions made by learned
          counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are first
          offenders and are not having any criminal background
          and are facing agony of trial since registration of FIR i.e.
E·        25.6.1996, the present petition is partly allowed. The
          judgments passed by Courts below qua conviction are
          upheld and sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the
          period already undergone by them."

F           6. The actual period undergone by the party-respondents
     is as follows, as noted in the impugned judgment:
          "As per the custody certificate issued by Jail
          Authorities, as on 24.05.2013, the custody period/
          actual period undergone (excluding remission) of
G
          the respondents is:
          Tara Singh                    4 months 26 days,
          Bhajan Singh                  5 months 24 days,
          Charan Dass                   5 months 26 days,
H         Dalbir Singh                  5 months 24 days."
      JASBIR SINGH v. TARA SINGH AND OTHERS                      65
                    [KURIAN, J.)

      Learned Counsel for the party-respondents submits that A
they have undergone a few more days incarceration in the jail.

      7. The appellant submits that the offences being grave
in nature, the High Court should not have let them go lightly.
                                                                 B
     8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the party-
respondents as well.

      9. The prescribed maximum punishment for offence
under Section 466 of IPC is seven years and fine; under Section
467 of IPC, it is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten C
years and fine; under Section 468 of IPC, it is seven years
and fine and under Section 471 of IPC, it is two years or with
fine or both. The trial court, having regard to the very same
submissions made before the High Court, passed the
                                                                0
sentence which we have extracted above.

     10. Though it is not possible for this court to lay down
strict principles on sentencing in the absence of a sentencing
policy for the State, certain indicators need to be borne in mind
by the Courts. The gravity of the offence, the mitigating factors E
and circumstances like parties buying peace, parties settling
the disputes and getting reconciled, victim subsequently
becoming part of the family, victim showing interest in getting
monetarily compensated, etc., the motive for commission of F
the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed,
the prescribed punishment and the social abhorrence of the
offences are but a few of them. These factors would help the
court to discern and decipher the appropriate purpose of
punishment and to enter a satisfaction that justice has been G
done. Unless there are mitigating circumstances which were
omitted to be noted by the trial court, the appellate/revisional
court will not be justified in arbitrarily reducing the sentence
awarded by the trial court. And in any case, when the appellate/
revisional court reduces the sentence, the factors leading to H
such reduction should be reflected in the order.
66            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A           11. In this context, it would also be profitable to refer to
     Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, where this Court held
     that the punishment should reflect the society's cry for justice
     against the criminais. To quote

s            "14. The general policy which the courts have followed
             with regard to sentencing is that the punishment must be
             appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence
             committed. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the
             manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry
C            for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that
             courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so
             that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.

           12. Jn the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed
o    and impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted
     to the High Court for passing an appropriate order in the case
     in accordance with law.

     Devika Gujral            Appeal allowed & matter remitted back to High Court.




      1
          (2010) 12 sec 532