STATE OF M.P.versusNAJAB KHAN AND ORS.

                    [2013] 8 S.C.R. 301


                     STATE OF M.P.                             A
                           v.
                NAJAB KHAN AND ORS.
           (Criminal Apppeal No. 809 of 2013)
                      JULY 01, 2013
                                                               B
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

     Sentence/Sentencing - Conviction uls. 326134 /PC by
courts below - Sentence of 3 years RI imposed by trial court
- Reduced by High Court to sentence for the period already     C
undergone i.e. 14 days - On appeal, Held: In view of the
serious nature of injuries, High Court was not justified in
reducing the sentence to the period already undergone -
Facts and circumstances of the case, nature of crime, manner
of planning and commission of the offence, motive, conduct     o
of accused, nature of weapons and all other attending
circumstances are relevant while imposing sentence - It is
duty of the Court to award appropriate sentence and not to
show undue sympathy - Sentence awarded by trial court
restored - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 326134.                       E

    The three appellants-accused alongwith another co-
accused 'M' were charged u/ss. 307, 341 and 326 IPC.
The proceedings against the co-accused 'M' were stayed
by High Court. During trial, in view of the compromise
between the parties, the appellants-accused were               F
acquitted u/s. 341 IPC. Trial court convicted them for the
offence punishable u/s. 326/34 IPC and sentenced them
to 3 years RI and imposed fine of Rs.500/- each with
default clause.
                                                               G
     In appeal, the appellants accused did not challenge
their conviction, but prayed for reducing their sentence.
High Court, confirmed their conviction and reduced their
sentence to the period already undergone, i.e. 14 days.
                           301                                 H
    302      SUPR.EME COURT REPQRTS           [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A   Hence the present appeal by the State.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. It is settled principle of law that the
  punishment should meet the gravity of the offence
B committed by the accused and courts should not show
  undue sympathy with the accused persons. 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
C 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
  would enter into the area of consideration. Undue
o 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 offence and the manner in which it was
E executed or committed. The Courts 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. [Paras 9 and 15) [307-D; 308-B-
  E; 311-B-C]
F      Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and
  Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 359: 2006 (1) SCR 477; Ahmed Hussein
  Vali Mohammed Saiyed and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat 2009
  (8) SCR 719: (2009) 7 SCC 254; Jameel vs. State of Uttar
  Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 532: 2009 (15) SCR 712; Guru
G Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa vs. State of Kamataka (2012) 8
  SCC 734: 2012 (8) SCR 189; Gopal Singh vs. State of
  Uttarakhand JT 2013 (3) SC 444; Hazara Singh vs. Raj
  Kumar and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 142 - relied on.

H         2. Considering the nature of injuries on the person
     STATE OF M.P. v. NAJAB KHAN AND 'ORS.               303


of the complainant, due to which he remained in hospital        A
for 29 days, the High Court was not justified in reducing
the sentence to the period already undergone without
assigning any acceptable and special reason for the
same. The High Court also failed to take note of the
opinion of the doctor that the injuries inflicted could have    B
posed threat to the complainant's life. Though both the
parties have amicably settled, in view of the fact that the
offence charged under Section 326 is non compoundable
and also in the light of serious nature of the injuries and
no challenge as to conviction, the High Court is not            c
justified in reducing the sentence to the period a,lready
undergone. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is
set aside and the sentence imposed on the respondents
by the trial court is restored. [Paras 8, 16 and 17] [307-B-
C; 311-C-E]                                                     D
                     Case Law Reference:
2006 (1) SCR 477             referred to           Para 9
(2009) 1 sec 254             referred to           Para 10
2009 (15) SCR 712            referred to           Para 11      E
2012 (8) SCR 189             referred to           Para 12
JT 2013 (3) SC 444           referred to           Para 13
2013 (6) Scale 142           referred to           Para 14
                                                                F
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIQN: Criminal Appeal
No. 809 of 2013.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2011 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal
Appeal No. 150 of 2006.                                         G
    C.D. Singh, Anshuman Shrivastava, Sakshi Kakkar., for the
Appeallant.
    Lakhan Singh Chauhan, Anil Shrivastav, for the
Respondents.                                                    H
    304      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
  order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya
B Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2006
  whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the
  respondents herein by maintaining the conviction and reducing
  their sentence to the period already undergone (i.e. 14 days)
  while affirming the decision dated 08.02.2006 passed by the
C Additional Sessions Judge-I, Guna (MP) in Sessions Trial No.
  311 of 2001 with respect to the conviction of respondents
  herein under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian
  Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC").

D         3. Brief facts:
          (a) On 11.08.2001, in the morning, when Mullo Bai, sister
    of Fida Hussain-the complainant, was passing through the field
    of Mohabbatdin - co-accused, at that time, Mohabbatdin
    abused her and told her not to pass through his field. On this,
E   Mullo Bai assured him that she will not pass through his field
    in future. On the same day, in the evening, at about 7.flO p.m.,
    when Fida Hussain, along with Ahmed Hussain, Gulabuddin
    and Guddu, was going to the shop ofone Nawab, on their way
    near the hand pump, Najab Khan and Mohabbatdin having
F   spade in their hands and Gani Khan holding a danda (stick) in
    his hand along with Munnawar Ali came at the spot and
    surrounded Fida Hussain. Fida Hussain tried to escape but
    could not succeed and Mohabbatdin attacked him with the
    spade due to which he sustained injury below his left shoulder
G   and left arm. In order to save him, the other persons, viz., Guddu
    and Gulabuddin, who were accompanying Fida Hussain,
    intervened. After beating Fida Hussain, the accused persons
    fled away from the spot. Thereafter, Fida Hussain went to the
    Radhogarh Police Station and an FIR was lodged which was
H   registered as Crime No. 248 of 2001.
         STATE OF M.P. v. NAJAB KHAN AND ORS.·                    305
                  [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
         (b) During the course of investigation, on 22.08.2011,           A
    Najab Khan was arrested and Gani Khan and Munnawar Ali
    were arrested on 10.09.2001. The police also got recovered
    the weapons (spades and stick) used in the commission of the
    aforesaid act.
                                                                          B
         (c) After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against
    the respondents herein under Sections 307, 341, 326 read with
    34 IPC and the case was committed to the Court of the First
    Additional Sessions Judge-I, Guna (MP) which was numbered
    as Sessions Trial No. 311 of 2001. Further, besides the
    accused persons/respondents herein, Mohabbatdin was also              C
    charged under Sections 341 and 307 of IPC but vide order
    dated 11.10.2002, passed by the High Court in Revision No.
    378 of 2002, it was directed to stay the proceedings against
    him and to continue the trial against rest of the persons i.e., the
    respondents herein.                                                   D

        (d) During the trial, on a compromise between the accused
    persons and Fida Hussain-the complainant, the accused
    persons were acquitted under Section 341 of IPC.
                                                                          E
         (e) By order dated 08.02.2006, the Additional Sessions
    Judge, convicted the respondents herein for the offence
    punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and
    sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for
    three years along with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to
    further undergo RI for 3 months.                                      F

         (f) Against the said order, the respondents moved an
    appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2006 before the High
    Court. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated
    13.12.2011, partly allowed the appeal by maintaining the              G
    conviction of the respondents herein and reduced their sentence
    to the period already undergone.

        (g) Aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed this
    appeal by way of special leave.
                                                                          H


-
    306      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A       4. Heard Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-
    State and Mr. Lakhan Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the
    respondent-accused.

         5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether
    the.High Court is justified in reducing the sentence to the period
8
    already undergone, viz., 14 days, without providing any cogent
    reason for the conviction under Section 326 read with Section ·
    34 IPC.

         6. In view of the fact that the respondents herein-accused
C   appellants before the High Court did not challenge the
    conviction but only prayed for reduction of sentence awarded
    by the trial Court, there is no need to traverse the details
    regarding the conviction. The fact remains that these persons
    were convicted by the trial Court under Section 326 read with
o   Section 34 IPC and sentenced to RI for three years along with
    a fine of Rs. 500/- each.

         7. It is stated before the High Court that during the trial they
    were in custody for a period of 14 days and the offence has
    already been compounded by the complainant and the appeal
E   is pending since 2006. The High Court, taking note of the above
    said aspects, reduced their sentence to the period already
    undergone.

        8. It is relevant to point out that after the registration of the
F   FIR, the complainant was sent for the mepical examination
    which was conducted by Dr. Anupam Singh (PW-9) and after
    examination, the doctor found the following two injuries on the
    person of the complainant:

          "a. An incised wound of 15 inches long extending, from left
G
          scapula to left shoulder joint bone deep bleeding present.

          b. An incised would of 1 inch long inter scapula bleeding
          was present. The doctor also opined that injuries has been
          caused by hard and sharp object and was of grievous
H         nature. The doctor also opined that the said injuries could
          STATE OF M.P. v. NAJAB KHAN AND ORS.                     307
                   [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
          have supposed a threat to the life of the complainant."          A

           It is further seen that on 13.08.2011, the x-ray of the chest
     and shoulder of the complainant was examined by Dr. Sitaram
     Raghuvanshi (PW-8) who found fracture of left scapula divided
     into two pieces extending from glenoid cavity with dislocation
                                                                           B
     of left shoulder joint. Considering such injuries, due to which the
     complainant remained in hospital for 29 days, we are of the
     view that the High Court is not justified in reducing the sentence
     to the period already undergone without assigning any
     acceptable and special reason for the same. The High Court
     also failed· to take note of the opinion of the doctor that the       C
     injuries inflicted could have posed threat to the complainant's
     life.

..        9. It is settled principle of law that the punishment should
     meet the gravity of the offence committed by the accused and          D
     courts should not show undue sympathy with the accused
     persons. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of
     proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.
     In Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another vs. State of Gujarat and
     others, (2006) 2 SCC 359, this Court held that the sentence           E
     imposed is not proportionate to the offence committed, hence
     not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was further observed as
     under:

          "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting
          claims and demands. Security of persons and property of          F
          the people is an 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
          are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the          G
          challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine
          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         H
    308      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A         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 social consciousness of
          society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law
B         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
          manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive
c         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.

D         8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate
          sentence would do more harm to the justice system to
          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
E         sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and
          the manner in which it was executed or committed etc."


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

          "99 ..... The object of awarding appropriate sentence should
          be to protect the society and to deter the criminal from
G         achieving the avowed object to law by imposing
          appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would
          operate the sentencing system so as to impose such
          sentence, which reflects the conscience of the society and
          the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
H         Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or
               STATE OF M.P. v. NAJAB KHAN AND ORS.                   309
                        [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
              taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of       A
              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.
                                                                              B
              100. Justice demands that courts should impose
              punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect
              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
                                                                              c
              if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which
              has been committed not only against the individual victim
              but also against the society to which both the criminal and
              the victim belong."
                                                                              D
               In this case, the court further goes to state that meager
          sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without
          considering the degree of the offence will be counter productive
          in the long run and against the interest of society.
                                                                              E
               11. In Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC
          532, this Court reiterated the principle by stating that the
          punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity
          of the offence committed. Speaking about the concept of
          sentencing, this Court observed thus: -
                                                                              F
              "15. In operating the sentencing system, law 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 G
              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 would enter into the area of consideration.   H

•
    310      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                           r

A         16. It is 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. The sentencing
          courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and
          circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and
8         proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the
          gravity of the offence."

         12. In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa vs. State of
    Karnataka, (2012) 8 sec 734, while discussing the concept
C   of appropriate sentence, this Court expressed that:

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

        13. This Court, in Gopa/ Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand,
    JT 2013 (3) SC 444 held as under:-
E         "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
          between the crime and punishment cannot be totally
          brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the
F
          bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence .... ."

        14. Recently, the above proposition is reiterated in Hazara            -
    Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Ors., 2013 (6) Scale 142.

G      15. In view of the above, we reiterate that 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 planned and committed, the motive for
H commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature
                                                                                   <
          STATE OF M.P. v. NAJAB KHAN AND ORS.                       311
                   [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are              A
     relevant facts which 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          B
     the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was
     executed or committed. The Courts 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.

          16. Though it is stated that both the parties have amicably
                                                                            c
     settled,. in view of the fact that the offence charged under Section
     326 is non compoundable and also in the light of serious nature
     of the injuries and no challenge as to conviction, we are of the
     view that the High Court is not justified in reducing the sentence     D
     to the period already undergone.

          17. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court
     and restore the sentence imposed on the respondents herein.
     Consequently, the appeal filed by the State is allowed and the
     respondents-accused (A-1 to A-3) are directed to surrender             E
     within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the trial
     Judge is directed to take appropriate steps for sending· them
     to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

     K.K.T .                                          Appeal allowed.




.•
'