STATE OF M.P.versusUDAIBHAN

                           [2016] 1S.C.R.1080



A                            STATE OF M.P.
                                    v.
                               UDAIBHAN
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2016 etc.)
B                            MARCH 01, 2016
           [DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.)
          Sentence !Sentencing - Conviction of one accused inter alia
    u!s. 307 !PC and other tll'o accused u!s. 307/3./ !PC - Sentence of
C   JO years RI - High Court altered the conviction u!s.307 & 30713./
    to one u!s.326 and 32613./ and reduced the sentence to the period
    already undergone (i.e. one year nine 111011ths) - Appeal by State -
    Held: Ir is duty of rhe court awarding sentence to ensure jusrice to
    both the parties - ·Undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to
    be avoided - Reducing of sentence by High Court in absence of
D   any mitigating circumstance, suffers from the vice of being over;
    lenient - Sentence is altered to three years imprisonment, in place
    of the period already undergone - Penal Code, 1860 - s.326 and
    326134.
          Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
E
        HELD: I. It is the duty of the Court awarding sentence to
  ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency
  in awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not
  have the necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused
  and does not re-assure the society that the offender has been
F properly dealt with. It is not a very healthy situation to leave the
  injured and complainant side thoroughly dissatisfied with a very
  lenient punishment to the accused. In the present case the order
  of punishment imposed by the High Court suffers from the vice
  of being over-lenient even in absence of any mitigating
  circumstance. The High Court failed to keep under focus various
G
  relevant factors for a proper decision on the quantum of sentence
  which should have been imposed even for the altered conviction
  under Section 326 or Section 326/34 of the IPC. The High Court
  did not even note down the six injuries on the complainant. [Paras
  4 and 5)[1082-D, G, H; 1083-A-B)
H
                                    1080
                  STATE OF M.P. v. VDAIBHAN                                 1081



        2. The ends of justice would be satisfied by imposing on all        A
the three accused persons a sentence of rigorous imprisonment
for three years in place of period already undergone, for the
offence under Section 326 as well as Section 326/34 of the IPC.
The other sentence which has been maintained by the High Court
is left intact. However, it is clarified that sentence ofimprisonment
                                                                            B
for different offences against the respondents shall run
concurrently. [Para 6][1083-C]
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
182of2016
      From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal       c
No. 92 of2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at
Gwalior.
      Bansuri Swaraj, Raghunatha Sethapathy, C.D. Singh for the
Appellant.
      Dr. Pooja Jha, Am Ian Kumar Ghosh for the Respondent.                 D

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. These appeals by special leave
have been preferred by State of Madhya Pradesh against common
judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.92/        E
2002 and 106/2002.
       2. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has partly
allowed criminal appeals preferred by the three accused, namely,
Rajaram, Udaibhan and Hakim Singh, respondents in these appeals so
as to convert their conviction under Section 307 of!PC for Rajaram and
                                                                             F
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the·other two
appellants into one under Section 326 for Rajaram and 326/34 for the
other two. The High Court did not interfere with the fine imposed on the
respondents for the offence noted above as well as for the offence
under Section 323 IPC but reduced the sentence for imprisonment which
was R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 as       G
well as Section 307 read with Section 34 of the !PC to a period already
undergone by the respondents which was of one year and nine months
only.
      3. Since the High Court did not disbelieve the substratum of the
prosecution case and has maintained the conviction of respondents, albeit   H
1082                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2016] I S.C.R.


 A for an offence minor to one under Section 307 or Section 307 read with
   Section 34 of IPC, the only material issue worth consideration in these
   appeals is whether the High Court in the matter of awarding of
   punishment has ignored the relevant considerations and adopted an
   erroneous approach. The High Court accepted the contention advanced
   on behalf of the accused that the evidence on record did not establish
 B
   any intention on the part of the accused persons to kill the complainant
   or his brother, the two injured in this case. The High Court did not doubt
   nor did the accused persons raise any contention.that the injury sustained
   by the complainant on head was not a grievous injury. Being an incised
   wound on temporal region of the head, it was clearly caused by a sharp
 c cutting weapon and dangerous to Iife. The doctor held the aforesaid
   injury no. I on the head to be grievous on the basis of X-ray which showed
   fracture of the skull bone.
          4. The High Court in our considered opinion failed to keep under
   focus various relevant factors for a.proper decision on the quantum of
 D sentence  which should have been imposed even for the altered conviction
   under Section 326 or Section 326/34 of the !PC. The prosecution case
   which has been accepted as true disclosed that the complainant Kriparam
   was called to Panchayat Bhawan where the accused persons were
   already present with weapons. Rajaram was having farsa whereas
   Hakim was armed with an iron rod and Udaibhan with lathi. As soon as
 E the complainant arrived he was threatened and assaulted by all the three
   with their respective weapons. Rajaram caused a farsa injury on the
   head, Hakim caused an injury with iron bar on the eyebrow near the
   right eye. Udaibhan gave more than one lathi blows. When complainant's
   brother Prabhu came for his rescue then he was also assaulted with
 F lathi blows by Udaibhan.
          5. The High Court did not even note down the six injuries on the
   complainant which included a grievous injury on the temporal part, a
   reddish blue mark on the upper side of right eye, another injury having
   blue mark on the forehead and another wound on the eyebrow on the
 G right eye. There was hardly any mitigating circumstance to take such a
   lenient view as has been done by the High Court. The law on the
   principles governing proper sentencing has been elaborated by this Court
   in large number of cases. It is the duty of the Court awarding sentence
   to ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency in
 H
    STATE OF M.P. v. UDAIBHAN [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]                            1083



awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the               A
necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not re-
assure the society that the offender has been properly dealt with. It is
not a very healthy situation to leave the injured and complainant side
thoroughly dissatisfied with a very lenient punishment to the accused.
In the present case the order of punishment imposed by the High Court
                                                                                 B
suffers from the vice of being over-lenient even in absence of any
mitigating circumstance.
       6. In such a situation, the interest of justice requires interference
with the punishment imposed by the High Court. The ends of justice
would be satisfied by imposing on all the three accused persons a sentence
of rigorous imprisonment for three years in place of period already
                                                                                 c
undergone, for the offence under Section 326 as well as Section 326/34
of the !PC. The other sentence which has been maintained by the High
Court is left intact. However, it is clarified that sentence of imprisonment
for different offences against the respondents shall run concurrently.
The impugned judgment and order are modified accordingly. The Trial              D
Court shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the respondents are
taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder period of
imprisonment in connection with Sessions Case No. 16/2001, tried by
Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh). The appeals
preferred by the State are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
                                                                                  E
Kalpana K. Tripathy                                   Appeals partly allowed .




                                                      ... -