STATE OF M.P.versusBABULAL & ORS.

                   [2013] 10 S.C.R. 21


                     STATE OF M.P.                           A
                            v.
                    BABULAL & ORS.
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2013)
                   AUGUST 12, 2013
                                                             B
       [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]

     Sentence/Sentencing - Conviction u/ss. 148, 3241149
and 3261149 IPC and s~ntence of 3 years SI by trial court and
appellate court - Revi~ional Court upheld the conviction, but C
reduced the sentence to 3 months on the ground of delay in
criminal proceedings - Held: It is solemn duty of Court to
strike a proper balance while awarding sentence - Taking a
lenient view showing misplaced sympathy to the accused on
any consideration reduces the criminal justice system into a D
mockery - In the present case, in view of the serious nature
of injuries on the victims, High Court was not justified in
reducing the sentence - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 148, 3241
149 and 3261 149.

   · Trial court convicted the respondents-accused for       E
commission of offences punishable ulss. 148, 324/149
(two .counts) and 326/149 (two counts) IPC and
sentenced them to 3 years SI and imposed fine with
default clause. In appeal, High Court confirmed the
conviction and sentence. In Revision Petition, accused       F
prayed only for reducing heir sentence in view of the fact
that criminal proceedings had protracted for about 7
years. The Revisional Court reduced the sentence from
3 years to 3 months. Hence the present appeal by the
S~~-                                                         G
    AHowing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1. One of the prime objectives of criminal law
                            21                               H
          22       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


          A is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate
                punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and
                nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is
                committed. The most relevant determinative factor of
                sentencing is proportionality between crime and
           B punishment keeping in miri.d the social interest and
                consciousness of the society. It is a mockery of the
                crimjrial justice system to take a lenient view showing mis-
                placed sympathy to the accused on any consideration
                whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of criminal
           c proceedings. The Punishment should not be so lenient
                that it shocks the conscience of the society being
                abhorrent to the basic principles of sentencing. Thus, it
                is the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance
                while awarding sentence as awarding a lesser sentence
··•;,....J:> encourages a criminal and as a result of the same, the
            • ..$.~Ciety suffers. [Para 16] [31-B-E]
           -,~




            2. In the present case, four persons were injured and
        two of them had more than one head injury. There were
        too many injuries on their persons and some of them had
      E been inflicted on vital parts of the body. High Court could
        not be justified in taking a lenient view which reduces the
        administration of the criminal justice system to a mockery.
        Therefore, the Judgment of the High Court is set aside
        and that of the Trial Court is restored. [Paras 17 and 20]
      F [31-E-G; 32-E]
             Mahesh and etc. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1987
        SC 1346: 1987 (2) SCR 710; State of Punjab vs. Bira Singh
        and Ors. (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 708; Chinnadurai vs. State of
        Tamil Nadu AIR 1996 SC 546: 1995 (3) Suppl. SCC 686;
      G State of U.P. vs. Shri Kishan AIR 2005 SC 1250; Sadhupati
        Nageswara Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2012 SC
        3242: 2012 (6) SCR 1143; Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State
        of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3802: 2012 (1) SCR 145; State
        of Karnataka vs. Krishnappa AIR 2000 SC 1470: 2000 (2)
      H SCR 761; Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC
        STATE OF M.P. v. BABULAL & ORS.                23

1677: 2000 (3) SCR 1000; Dhananjoy Chatterjee@ Dhanna       A
VS. State of West Bengal (1994) 2 sec 220: 1994 (1) SCR
37; Ravji@ Ram Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996
SC 787: 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 195; State of Uttar Pradesh
vs. Sanjay Kumar (2012) 8 SCC 537: 2012 (7) SCR 359 -
relied on.                                                  B
    Ram Govind and Ors. vs. State of M.P. (2002) 3 MPHT
301; Vijay Singh vs. State of M.P. (1994) II MPWN 98;
Havaldar Singh vs. State of M.P. (1995) I MPWN 275 -
disapproved.
                                                            c
                   Case Law Reference:
    1987 (2) SCR 710        relied on         Para 8
    (1995) Supp. 3 sec 708 relied on          Para 9
                                                            D
    1995 (3) Suppl. sec 686 relied on         Para 10
    AIR 2005 SC 1250         relied on        Para 11
    2012 (6) SCR 1143        relied on        Para 12
    2012 (1) SCR 145         relied on        Para 13       E

    2000 (2)' SCR 761        relied on        Para 13
    2000 (3) SCR 1000        relied on        Para 13
    1994 (1) SCR 37          relied on        Para 14       F
    1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 195 relied on         Para 14
   . 2012 (7) SCR 359        relied on        Para 15
    (2002) 3 MPHT 301       disapproved       Para 18
                                                            G
    .(1994) II MPWN 98      disapproved       Para 18
    (1995) I MPWN 275       disapproved       Para 18

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1156 of 2013.       \                                   H
    24         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 10 S.C.R.


A       From the Judgment & Order dated 14.12.2011 of the High
    Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in
    Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2010.

            Bansuri Swaraj, C.D. Singh for the Appellant.
B
        Prashant Shukla, Nikilesh Ramachandran for the
    Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

c        DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed
    against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2011
    passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (Gwalior Bench)
    in Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2010, by way of which the
    conviction of the respondents has been maintained under
    Sections 148, 324, 326 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
0
    1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') as awarded by the
    learned trial court, however, the sentence has been reduced
    from 2 years to 3 months.

            2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
E   that:

        A. One Su nil (PW.1) lodged a complaint with the police
  station Bhander on 21.3.2004 that his father Nahar Singh
  (PW.5) had gone to his agricultural field for guarding his crops,
F all the respondents came there on a tractor driven by Kallu,
  armed with axe, farsa and lathi etc. When the complainant Sunil
  tried to stop the tractor, the respondents started abusing him
  and on being asked not to abuse, the respondents caused
  injuries to the complainant Su nil (PW.1) with their respective
G weapons. When his father Nahar Singh (PW.5) came to rescue
  him, the respondents had beaten him of which he suffers
  injuries. In the meanwhile, on hearing hue and cry, brother of
  complainant, namely, Brijraj (PW.3) and one Kunwar Singh
  (PW.2) reached the spot and tried to intervene, they were also
  beaten by the respondents. When other persons namely, Kalyan
H
          STATE OF M.P. v. BABULAL & ORS.                    25
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

 Singh and Nirbhay Singh reached the spot, the accused             A
 persons fled away from there hurling threats to kill the
 complainant side.

      B. In view of the complaint filed by Sunil (PW.1), the law
 came into motion. The police arrested the accused persons,        8
 weapons etc. were recovered on the basis of the disclosure
 statements made by them, and various memos were prepared.

      C. After completing the investigation, the police filed
  chargesheet against the respondents under Sections 147, 148,
  149, 294, 323, 324 and 506-B IPC. On the basis thereof, the      C
  charges had been framed against the respondents/accused
· under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506 Part 2, 326/149 (two
  counts), 324/149 (two counts).

      D. In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined    o
 large number of witnesses. The learned Magistrate vide
 impugned judgment and order dated 10.9.2009 convicted the
 respondents for commission of the offences punishable under
 Sections 148, 324/149 (two counts) and 326/149 (two counts)
 of IPC, and sentenced them to undergo one-one year simple         E
 imprisonment with fine of Rs.100-100/- and two-two years
 simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.150-150/- respectively, and
 in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple
 imprisonment of 10-10 days.

     E. Aggrieved, the respondents-accused filed Criminal          F
 Appeal No. 74 of 2009 before the learned Additional Sessions
 Judge (Fast Track), Datia. The said appeal was dismissed by
 order dated 15.1.2010.

      F. The respondents further challenged the said order dated   G
 15.1.2010 by filing Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2010 before
 the High Court which was disposed of vide impugned judgment
 and order dated 14.12.2011.

      Hence, this appeal by the State.
                                                                   HI
    26       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A         3. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel appearing on
    behalf of the appellant State, has submitted that if the criminal
    proceedings has protracted for 7-1 /2 years that could not be a
    ground for reducing the sentence from two years to 3 months
    only by the High Court. Such a reduction of sentence is not
B   justified, particularly, when the respondents did not argue their
    case on merit at all. In case, the High Court earlier had reduced
    the sentence in a similar manner that cannot be a precedent
    as other case is to be decided on its own merit. Therefore, in
    the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded
c    by th~ learned trial court should be restored and the order of
    the High Court requires to be modified to that extent.

          4. On the contrary, Shri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel
    appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that the
    respondents faced the criminal prosecution for a long time and
D   the sentence was reduced vide order dated 14.12.2011. The
    High Court was justified· in following the earlier judgment
    wherein under the similar circumstances, the sentence had
    been reduced as undergone. Thus, the facts of the case do not
    warrant any interference whatsoever in the case and the appeal -
E   is liable to be dismissed.

         5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
    learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
    the records.
F
         6. Admittedly, the respondents did not argue the case on
    merit. It was prayed before the High Court that as a period of
    more than 7 years had elapsed when the incident had taken
    place, while upholding the guilt of the said accused, sentence
    may be reduced as undergone which was about 3 months and
G   amount of fine may be imposed. Such a prayer has been
    accepted by the High Court. Even before. us learned counsel
    appearing on behalf of the respondents has not argued anything
    on merit and the matter is restricted only to the quantum of
    punishment and nothing else.
H
          STATE OF M.P. v. BABULAL & ORS.                         27
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
      7. Dr. G.L. Verma (PW.7) who had examined the victims/             A
 injured witnesses in this case· proved the injuries as under:

       Nahar Singh (PW.5) had suffered 5 injuries including an
  incised wound (fracture) on his right hand thumb and an
  lacerated wound in the middle of his left leg. Brijraj (PW.3) got      B
  7 injuries including an incised wound in the middle of his left
  leg, and incised wound in the right side of his head. Kunwar
  Singh (PW.2) was found to have 7 injuries including an incised
  would deep to skin on the right side of his B and a lacerated
  wound on his left hip. Sunil (PW.1) had found 11 injuries
  including an incised wound deep' to bone in right side of his          C
  head, an incised wound deep to bone in left side of his head,
- an incised wound in the middle of his head, an incised wound
  deep to bone in the middle of his left leg, and a lacerated wound
  in the right hand thumb and an incised wound in the left leg.
                                                                         o·
      8. In Mahesh & etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
 1987 SC 1346, while dealing with a similar issue, this Court
 held as under:

      ".... it will be a mockery of justice to permit these appellants   E
       to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such
      evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser
      punishment for the appellants would be to render the
      justicing system of this country suspect. The common man
      will lose faith in Courts. In such cases, he understands and       F
      appreciates the language of deterrence more than the
      reformative jargon ..... ."

     9. This Court in State of Punjab v. Bira Singh & Ors.,
 (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 708, has held that at the time of awarding
 the sentence, the court should not be confused with the principle G
 of adopting the most lenient view and an accused may not be
 awarded lesser punishment so that there would be deterrence
 for committing the crime again and such a view may adversely
 affect not only the accused but the society as a whole.
                                                                         H
    28       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A        10. In Chinnadurai v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1996 SC
    546, this Court rejected the plea for reduction of sentence in
    view of a considerable delay and other circumstances
    observing that sentence has to be awarded taking into
    consideration the gravity of the injuries.
B
         11. In State of U.P. v. Shri Kishan, AIR 2005 SC 1250,
    this Court has emphasised that just and proper sentence should
    be imposed. The Court held:

         " ...... Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences
c        or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of
         lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-
         wise counter productive in the long run and against
         societal interest which needs to be cared for and
         strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the
D        sentencing system.

         The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate
         punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been
         committed not only against the individual victim but also
E        against the society to which the criminal and victim belong.
         The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be
         irrelevant but it should c onform to and be consistent with
         the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been
         perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public
         abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for
F        justice against the criminal'." (Emphasis added)

         12. In Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra
    Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 3242, this Court observed that the
    courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the
G   ground of sympathy or delay as the same cannot furnish any
    ground for reduction of sentence.

        13. In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
    2012 SC 3802, this Court held as under:
H
        STATE OF M.P. v. BABULAL & ORS.                   29
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J·.]
    "Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. A
    One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is
    imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and
    proportionate sentence commensurate with the
    nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which
    the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for B
    sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have
    evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the
    sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What
    sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the
    facts and circumstances of each case and the court must c
    keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime,
    nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.

          The principle of proportionality in sentencing a
    crime-doer is well entrenched in criminal
    jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion between D
    crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in
    determination of sentencing the crime-doer. The court has
    to take into consideration all aspects including social
    interest and consciousness of the society for award of
    appropriate sentence." (Emphasis added)                   E

    (See also: State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, AIR 2000
SC 1470; and Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC
1677)

   14. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee@ Dhanna v. State of West F
Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220, this Court observed:

    " ... The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the
    criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the
    society at large while considering the imposition of G
    appropriate punishment.•

    (See also: Ravji @ Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan,
AIR 1996 SC 787).
                                                               H
    30        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A       15. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar, (2012) 8
    SCC 537, this Court examined the issue of sentencing policy
    and came to the conclusion:

           "21. Sentencing policy is a way to guide judicial discretion
B          in accomplishing particular sentencing. Generally, two
           criteria, that is, the seriousness of the crime and the
         . criminal history of the accused, are used to prescribe
           punishment. By introducing more uniformity and
           consistency into the sentencing process, the objective of
           the policy, is to make it easier to predict sentencing
c          outcomes. Sentencing policies are needed to address
           concerns in relation to unfettered judicial discretion and lack
           cif uniform and equal treatment of similarly situated
           convicts. The principle of proportionality, as followed in
           various judgments of this Court, prescribes that, the
D          punishments should reflect the gravity of the offence and
           also the criminal background of the convict. Thus, the
           graver the offence and the longer the criminal record, the
           more severe is the punishment to be awarded. By laying
           emphasis on individualised justice, and shaping the result
E          of the crime to the circumstances of the offender and the
           needs of the victim and community, restorative justice
           eschews uniformity of sentencing. Undue sympathy to
           impose inadequate sentence "would do more harm to the
           public system to undermine the public confidence in the
F          efficacy of law and society could not long endure under
           serious threats.

         22. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to award
         proper sentence, having regard to the nature of the offence
         and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc.
G
         The courts should impose a punishment befitting the crime
         so that the courts are able to accurately reflect public
         abhorrence of the crime. It is the nature and gravity of the
         crime, and not the criminal, which are germane for
         consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial.
H
          STATE OF M.P. v. BABULAL & ORS.                      31
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
      Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on        A
      social order in many cases may be in reality,- a futile
      exercise."

       16. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be
  summarised to the effect that one of the prime objectives of
                                                                  8
  criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate
  punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature
  of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. The
  most relevant determinative factor of sentencing is
  proportionality between crime and punishment keeping in mind C
  the social interest and consciousness of the society. It is a
  mockery of the criminal justice system to take a lenient view
  showing mis-placed sympathy to the accused on any
  consideration whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of
- criminal proceedings. The Punishment should not be so lenient
  that it shocks the conscience of the society being abhorrent to D
  the basic principles of sentencing.

      Thus, it is the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper
  balance while awarding sentence as awarding a lesser
  sentence encourages a criminal and as a result of the same          E
  society suffers.

        17. The case at hand is required to be decided on the
  basis of the aforesaid settled legal propositions in respect of
  principles of sentencing. Admittedly, four persons were injured
  and two of them had more than one head injury. There were           F
  too many injuries on their persons and some of them had been
  inflicted on vital parts of the body. In our view, the High Court
  could not be justified in taking a lenient view which reduces the
  administration of the criminal justice system to a mockery.
                                                                      G
       18. We do not find any force in the submission advanced
  by Shri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the
  respondents that the High Court has passed a correct order
  placing reliance on the earlier judgment in Ram Govind & Ors.
  v. State of M.P., (2002) 3 MPHT 301, wherein the accused            H
     32      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A    therein had been convicted under Sections 147 and 325/149
     IPC and awarded the sentence of 6 months RI under Section
     147 IPC and a sentence of 1 year RI under Sections 325/149
     IPC, and further a fine had been imposed. The High Court
     considering the fact that period of 16 years had elapsed took
B    a lenient view further placing reliance on earlier judgments in
     Vijay Singh v. State of M.P., (1994) II MPWN 98; and Havaldar
     Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) I MPWN 275 and reduced the
     sentence to the period undergone by them which was only 6
     days for the reason that none of the judgments referred to in
c    Ram Govind (supra)-can be approved.

          19. All the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for
     the respondents are not in consonance with the law of
     sentencing policy laid down by this court in any of the judgments
     referred to hereinabove. Taking such a lenient view in awarding
0    the sentence tantamounts to doing injustice of a crude form
     against the innocent victims and the society as a whole. Thus,
     the submission advanced is liable to be rejected.

          20. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is
E    allowed. The Judgment of the High Court is set aside and that
     of the Trial Court restored. The respondents are directed to
     surrender within four weeks from today failing which the learned
     Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Bhander, Distt.. Datia is directed
     to take them into custody and send them to jail to serve out the
.F   remaining part of the sentence. A copy of the order be sent to
     the learned Magistrate concerned.        ·

     K.KT.                                          Appeal allowed.