STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSURENDRA SINGH

                       [2014] 13 S.C.R. 554


A                STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                 v.
                        SURENDRA SINGH

B               (Criminal Appeal No. 2401 of 2014)
                       NOVEMBER 13, 2014
          [M. Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
c       Sentencing/Sentencing policy - Duty of the courts to
  consider al/relevant factors to impose appropriate sentence
  -Accident caused by jeep due to rash and negligent driving
  bydriverofthejeep (respondent) leading to death of a person
  travelling in the jeep - Conviction of respondent by trial court
D - Revision petition - High Court maintained conviction but
  reduced sentence awarded by trial court to the period already
  undergone - Propriety- Held: On facts, the trial court did not
  commit any illegality in passing the order of conviction -
  However, without proper appreciation of the evidence and
E consideration of gravity of the offence, the High Court showed
  undue sympathy by modifying the conviction to the period
  already undergone - Penal Code, 1860- ss.279, 337 and
   304-A.
F        Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 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
G 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
H
                                 554
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRASINGH                   555


sentence and proceed to impose a sentence                    A
commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 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. Meagre sentence
imposed solely on account of lapse of time without           B
considering the degree of the offence will be counter-
productive in the long run and against the interest of the
society. It is solemn duty of the court to strike a proper
balance while awarding the sentence as awarding lesser
sentence encourages any criminal and, as a result of the     C
same, the society suffers. The impugned order of the
High Court reducing the sentence to the period already
undergone is set aside and, to avoid miscarriage of
justice, the sentence imposed by the trial court is
                                                             0
restored. [Paras 14, 15 and 16][563-B-E; G-H; 564-A-B]
     Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 3
     SCC 471 : 1991 (2) SCR 711; Dhananjoy
     Chatterjee @ Dharia v. State of West Bengal
     (1994) 2 SCC 220: 1994 (1) SCR 37; Mahesh               E
     and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1987) 3
     SCC 80 : 1987 (2) SCR 710; Hazara Singh v.
     Raj Kumar(2013) 9 SCC 516: 2013 (5) SCR 979;
     Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat (2006) 2
     SCC 359 : 2006 (1) SCR 477; Ahmed Hussein               F
     Va/i Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2009)
     7 sec 254 : 2009 (8) SCR 719 and State of
     Madhya Pradesh v. Bab/u, 2014 (9) SCALE 678
     -relied on.
                                                             G
                    Case Law Reference:
     1991 (2) SCR 711            relied on     Para 8
     1994 (1) SCR 37             relied on     Para 9
                                                             H
556        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A          1987 (2) SCR 710             relied on      Para 9

           2013 (5) SCR 979             relied on      Para 10

           2006 (1) SCR 477      relied on             Para 11

 B         2009 (8) SCR 719      relied on             Para 12

           2014 (9) SCALE 678 relied on                Para 13

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION· Criminal
      Appeal No. 2401 of 2014.
 c
           From the Judgment and Order dated 22-08-2012 of the
      High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Criminal
      Revision No. 03 of 2008.

           C.D. Singh,Annirudh Sharma,Advs. fortheAppellant.
 D
          Prashant Shukla, Nikilesh Ramachandran,Advs. for the
      Respondent.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 E         M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.
         2. State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal
   by special leave against the judgment and order dated .
   22.8.2012 passed by learned Single Judge of High Court of
 F Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, who allowed the appeal,
   preferred by the respondent-accused, in part maintaining his
   conviction but reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court
   to the period already undergone subject to depositing further
   compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the widow/mother of the
 G deceased.

           3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.5.1998 a
      ward boy of Sabalgarh Hospital lodged a written report at
      Sabalgarh police station to the effect that one Vijay Singh of
 H
  STATE OF MADHYAPRADESHv. SURENDRASINGH                            557
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

village Mangroli died in accident caused by a jeep bearing A
registration no.SP 7H 6045. Thereafter, case was investigated
and challan was filed against the respondent-accused, who
was driver of the jeep and the accident occurred due to his
rash and negligent driving. After completion of trial, the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Sabalgarh convicted the respondent- B
accused forthe offence punishable under Sections 279, 337,
304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo
six months and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively
with fine of Rs.2,500/-. Aggrieved by the order of conviction
passed by the trial court, respondent filed appeal before the C
Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, who upheld the order
of conviction passed by the trial court.

      4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the
respondent-accused moved the High Court in revision.                D
Learned counsel for the respondent assailed the order and.in
the alternative submitted before the High Court that the
accused, who is a poor person, has already served substantive
part of jail sentence and prayed that his sentence may be
reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of           E
fine may reasonably be enhanced. Learned counsel for the
State objected and submitted that revision al jurisdiction of the
High Court is limited and no interference is called for in the
concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The High
Court partly allowed revision petition of the accused               F
maintaining findings of conviction of the accused with the
modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded to the
accused is reduced to the period already undergone subject
to depositing further compensation of Rs.2,000/- payable to         G
the widow/mother of the deceased Vijay Singh.
      5. Dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, State of
Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal contending that
the High Court has limited revisional jurisdiction and ought not
                                                                    H
558        SUPREME. COURT REPORTS                (2014] 13 S.C.R.


A to have interfered with the concurrent findings of the courts
  below. It is further contended that ·High Court has erred in
  passing impugned order of partly allowing the revision petition
  of the accused without taking into consideration the gravity of
  the act committed by the respondent, whereby an innocent man
B lost his life due to negligence of the respondent.

         . 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
      appearing on either side.
          7. In the instant case, after proper appreciation of
 C evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that the accused
   had endangered the life of Vijay by driving the jeep on a public
   road in a rash and negligent manner. The accused dashed
   the jeep against a pulia first and then against a Babul tree. As
 D a result of such accident Vijay Singh, who was travelling in the
   jeep got injured and died, and another person Mangilal, who
   was also in the jeep, received injuries. We are of the opinion
   that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing
   the order of conviction and in the appeal preferred by the
 E accused findings of the trial court were affirmed. However,
    without proper appreciation of the evidence and consideration
    of gravity of the offence, learned Single Judge of the High Court
    shown undue sympathy by modifying the conviction to the
    period already undergone.
 F       8. In our considered opinion, the High Court while passing
   the impugned order has completely failed to follow the
   principles enunciated by this Court in catena of decisions.
   Undue sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence
 G would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the
   public confidence in the efficacy of law and the society cannot
   endure long under serious threats. If the courts do not protect
   the injured, the injured would.then resort to personal vengeance.
   Therefore, the duty of any court is to award proper sentence
 H
  STATE OF MADHYAPRADESHv. SURENDRASINGH                             559
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in A
which it was committed. (See Sevaka Peru ma/ vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC 471)

      9. In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee @Dhana vs.
 State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220, this Court held as          B
·Under:
      "In recent years, the rising crime rate-particularly violent
      crime against women has made the criminal sentencing
      by the courts a subject of concern. Today there are
      admitted disparities. Some criminals get very harsh            C·
     sentences while many receive grossly different sentence
     for an essentially equivalent crime and a shockingly large
     number even go unpunished, thereby encouraging the
     criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by
                                                                     0
     weakening the system's credibility. Of course, it is not
     possible to lay down any cut and dry formula relating to
     imposition of sentence but the object of sentencing
     should be to see that the crime does not go unpunished
     and the victim of crime as also the society has the             E
     satisfaction that justice has been done to it. In imposing
     sentences, in the absence of specific legislation, Judges
     must consider variety of factors and after considering all
     those factors and taking an over-all view of the situation,
     impose sentence which they consider to be an                    F
     appropriate one. Aggravating factors cannot be ignored
     and similarly mitigating circumstances have also to be
     taken into consideration.
     In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a given case G
     must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the conduct
     of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state
     of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the
     manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry
                                                                     H
560        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A          for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that
           courts should impose punishment fitting to the crime so
           that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. 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
 B         at large while considering imposition of appropriate
           punishment."
           10. While considering this aspect, the Apex Court in the
      case of Mahesh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
 c    (1987) 3 sec 80, remarked that,
           "... it will be a mockery of justice to permit these appellants
           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
 D
           Justice system of this country suspect. The common man
           will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands
           and appreciates the language of deterrence more than
           the reformative jargon. When we say this, we do not ignore
 E         the need for a reformative approach in the sentencing
           process ..... "

           11. In the case of Hazara Singh versus Raj Kumar,
    (2013) 9 SCC 516, this Court has observed that it is the duty
 F 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,
    which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The
    punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the
 G nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of
     proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at
    a fair and impartial verdict. This Court further observed that
    the cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence
  · imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has
 H
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA SINGH                           561
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of t:ie A
offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of
proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.

     12. In Shai/esh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat,
(2006) 2 SCC 359, the Apex Court opined that                          B
     "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 achieved through instrumentality of criminal         C
     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 social order and lay it in ruins.                D
     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          E
     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 should adopt the
     corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual              F
     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 for commission          G
     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
562        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2014] 13 S.C.R.


A          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
 B         proper sentence having regard to the nature of the
           offence and the manner in which it was executed or
           committed, etc."

            13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein
 C    Va/i Mohammed Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC
      254, 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 (sic break the) law
 D
           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
 E         where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing
           meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely
           on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences
           will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and
           against the interest of society which needs to be cared
 F         for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the
            sentencing system.

            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
 G
           keep in view the rightS of the victim of the crime but 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
 H
    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRASINGH                       563
                  [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

       which has been committed not only against the individual     A
       victim but also against the society to which both the
       criminal and the victim belong."

       14. We again reiterate in this case that undue sympathy
 to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the B
 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 executed or committed. The sentencing
 courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and C
 circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and
 proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity
 of the offence. 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. Meagre D
 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 the society.

         15. In a recent decision in the case of State of Madhya E
  Pradesh vs. Bablu - Criminal Appeal No.1845 of 2014, after
  considering and following the earlier decisions, this Court
  reiterated the settled proposition of law that one of the prime
. objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just,
  proportionate punishment which commensurate with gravity, F
  nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is
  committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and
  conscience of the society while considering the determinative
  factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should
  not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It G
  is, therefore, solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance
  while awarding the sentence as awarding lesser sentence
  encourages any criminal and, as a result of the same, the
  society suffers.
                                                                     H
564         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A         16. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order
   reducing sentence to the period already undergone and, to
   avoid miscarriage of justice, this appeal is allowed restoring
   the sentence imposed by the trial court. The respondent is
   directed to surrender within two weeks from today, failing which,
 B the trial Judge is directed to take appropriate steps for sending
   him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.


      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                            Appeals allowed.