STATE OF PUNJABversusBAWA SINGH

                    [2015] 1 S.C.R. 709


                   STATE OF PUNJAB                              A
                             V.
                       BAWA SINGH
             (Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2015)
                    JANUARY 15, 2015
                                                                B
       [M.Y. EQBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Sentence/Sentencing - Sentence of one and half years
for conviction u/s 326 /PC - Reduced by Revisional Court to
the period already undergone (about 4 months) - Propriety       C
of - Held: It is duty of the Court to award proper sentence
having regard to the nature of offence - Undue sympathy by
means of inadequate sentence does more harm to the justice
system to undermine the public confidence - High Court,
without appreciation of the evidence and consideration of the   D
gravity of the offence has taken lenient view and shown undue
sympathy- Matter remitted to High Court to pass order afresh
in revision petition - Penal Code, 1860 - s.326.

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

     HELD: 1. The sentencing courts are expected to
consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on
the question of sentence and proceed to impose a
sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.          F
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 considering the degree of the offence will be      G
counter-productive in the long run and against the
interest of the society. [para 17] [719-D-F]

    State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281
                            709                                 H
    710       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2015] 1 S.C.R.

A   and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Singh, 2014 (12)
    SCALE 672 - relied on.

       2. Undue sympathy by means of imposing
  inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice
  system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy
8
  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 having
C regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in
  which it was committed. [para 11] [715-0-E]

       3. In the instant case, after proper appreciation of
  evidence the trial court as well as the Sessions Court
  rightly came to the conclusion that the accused-
D respondent was not entitled for benefit to probation since
  he caused injuries on the person of the complainant with
  Gandasa and dispute between the parties was already
  pending. The trial court has not committed any illegality
  in passing the order of conviction and in the appeal
E preferred by the accused, findings of the trial court were
  affirmed. However, without proper appreciation of the
  evidence and consideration of gravity of the offence, the
  High Court has taken lenient stand, if not casual and
  shown undue sympathy by modifying the conviction to
F the period already undergone. Hence the impugned order
  passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is
  remanded back to the High Court to pass a fresh order
  in the revision petition [para 10 and 19] [714-H; 715-A-C;
  720-C]

G      Sevaka Perumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 (2) SCR
  711     =
         (1991) 3 SCC 471; Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana
  vs. State of West Bengal 1994 (1) SCR 37 = (1994) 2 SCC
  220; Mahesh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1987
  (2) SCR 710 = (1987) 3 sec 80, Hazara Singh versus Raj
H Kumar 2013 (5 ) SCR 979 = (2013) 9 SCC 516, Shailesh
        STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH                   711


Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat 2006 (1) SCR 477 = (2006)      A
2 SCC 359; Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed vs.
State of Gujarat 2009 (8) SCR719 = (2009) 7 SCC 254-
relied on.

                    Cctse Law Reference :
                                                                B
    1991 (2) SCR 711         relied on            para 11
    1994 (1)SCR37            relied on            para 12
    1987 (2) SCR 710         relied on            para 13
                                                                c
    2013 (5) SCR 979         relied on            para 14
    2006 (1) SCR477          relied on            para 15
    2009 (8) SCR 719         relied on            para 16
    (2014) s sec 281         relied on            para 18       D

   · 2014 (12) SCALE 672     relied on            para 18

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 90 of 2015.
                                                                E
    From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2013 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh \n Crl. Rev.
No. 1789 of 2013.

     V. Madhukar, AAG, Anvita Cowshish, Naresh Bakshi for       F
the Appellant.

    Rishi Malhotra, B. Veera Swamy Raju for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
                                                                G
    M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.

    2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment dated 11.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in Crl. Rev. No. 1789 of 2013 whereby the High
Court upheld the conviction of the respondent but reduced the   H
    712      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   period of sentence to the period already undergone.

         3. The facts of the case in brief are that a FIR No. 151
    dated 31.10.2004 was lodged against the respondent Bawa
    Singh and his wife Labh Kaur. The complainant Binder Singh
B   alleged that on 30.10.2004 while he was going on his tractor
    to his fields he saw the respondent with a cycle and carrying a
    gandasa accompanied by his wife Labh Kaur whereupon he
    stopped his tractor. The respondent and his wife were alleged
    to have said that the complainant needed to be taught a lesson
C   and allegedly hit the complainant with the gandasa. The cries
    of the complainant alerted his father Jangir Singh and his
    brother Hardev Singh who rushed to the spot whereupon the
    respondent and his wife fled abandoning the cycle. The
    complainant alleged that there was a property dispute between
    the parties. The complainant was admitted to a hospital and
D   his statement was taken only on the next day i.e. 31.10.2004
    on him being declared fit to do so. The site plan was prepared.
    The cycle was recovered from the spot and the gandasa was
    recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of the
    accused. The respondent and Labh Kaur were arrested on
E   07.11.2004 and charges were framed against them under
    sections 323 and 326 IPC r/w section 34 IPC.

       4. The prosecution examined PW1 for proving personal
  search memo, PW2 Jangir and PW3 Hardev who deposed to
F not having seen the accused inflicting the injures, PW4 Binder/
  complainant who supported the prosecution case, PW5
  Investigating Officer who proved the possession memo of the
  cycle and gandasa and PW6 Doctor who examined the
  complainant and found few simple injuries and one grievous
G injury on the finger.

         5. It was pleaded on behalf of the accused that the cycle
    allegedly left behind had not been produced. It was alleged that
    the depositions of PW 2 and 3 could not be relied upon as they
    were not eye witnesses and were interested witnesses and that
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 713


the injuries on the complainant or the admitted injuries on the     A
accused were not explained. It was also alleged that there was
an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.

      6. The trial court held that the statements of PW-2 Jangir
and PW-3 Hardev were relevant and not merely hearsay                B
evidence and that their statements would not be unreliable
merely because they were relatives. The delay in filing the FIR
was held to be explained as the complainant was proven to be
unfit to make the statement on the day of the incident. The court
further noted that though the accused claimed to have been
injured, they had not filed a complaint or put any suggestion
                                                                    c
regarding the same to the prosecution witness. The injuries on
the accused were simple in nature. It was held that non-
production of the cycle or the blood soaked soil was not fatal
to the prosecution case. The court held that the conduct of the
accused in travelling one kilometer from their house armed with     D
a gandasa and inflicting injuries on the complainant proved their
common intention and that the medical evidence proved that
the injuries inflicted were simple and in one instance grievous
in nature. The trial court convicted the respondent and
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine        E
of Rs.1000/- for offence punishable under section 326, IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- for
offence punishable under section 323 IPC. Labh Kaur was also
convicted under sections 326 and 323 IPC r/w section 34 IPC
and awarded the same sentence.                                      F
      7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the
respondent and his wife preferred appeal to the Sessions Court,
which noted that there was documentary evidence proving that
the accused and the complainant were treated by the same            G
doctor. The presence of the accused at the crime spot was
thereby held to be proven. Labh Kaur had no injuries on her
person and the six injuries on the respondent were held to be
simple and its non-explanation was, therefore, held to be not
fatal to the prosecution case. The Sessions Judge held that
                                                                    H
    714      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 1 S.C.R.

A   though PW-2 and PW-3 reached the spot afterwards, the
    statement of the complainant was enough to conclude that it
    was the accused who inflicted the injuries. The Sessions Judge,
    however, held that the finger injury was erroneously held to have
    been grievous as the radiologist who conducted the X-Ray of
B   the said injury and whose report was relied upon by PW-6 to
    hold the injury as grievous, was not examined. The Sessions
    Court set aside the conviction of the accused under section 3~6
    IPC but upheld their conviction under section 323 IPC upholding
    other findings of the trial court. The Sessions Judge also noted
C   that Labh Kaur was an old lady, who herself had not caused
    any injury to the complainant and was a first time offender and
    released her on probation on a bond of Rs.20,000/- after setting
    aside her sentence of imprisonment with fine. The respondent
    was however sentenced to imprisonment of one and half years
    with fine of Rs.1000/-.
0
          8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the
    respondent preferred revision before the High Court. The
    respondent did not challenge the order of conviction but sought
    reduction of the sentence awarded to the period of
E   imprisonment already undergone by him. The High Court noted
    that the respondent had been in jail for 4 months with remission
    of 15 days and that the incident took place on 30.10.2004
    resulting in a trial for 9 years and granted the prayer of the
    respondent subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- to the
F   complainant within two months. The revision petition was
    disposed off accordingly vide the impugned judgment reducing
    the sentence of the accused-respondent to the period already
    undergone. Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the
    State.
G
        9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
    appearing on E'.ither side and perused the papers placed
    before us.

        10. We are of the opinion that, in the instant case, after
H   proper appreciation of evidence the trial court as well as the
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 715


Sessions Court rightly came to the conclusion that the accused-     A
respondent is not entitled for benefit to probation since he
caused injuries on the person of the complainant with Gandasa
and dispute between the parties was already pending. We are
further of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any
illegality in passing the order of conviction and in the appeal     B
preferred by the 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 has taken lenient stand, if not casual
and shown undue sympathy by modifying the conviction to the         c
period already undergone.

     11. 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 would             D
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        E
having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in
which it was committed. (See Sevaka Perumal vs. State of
 Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC 471).

     12. In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana vs.            F
State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220, this Court held as
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            G
     admitted disparities. Some criminals get very harsh
     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          H
    716        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A         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 objeet of sentencing should
          be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the
          victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that
B         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 ar .!
          taking an over-all view of the situation, impose sentence
          which they consider to be an appropriate one. Aggravating
c         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
          must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the conduct
          of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state
D         of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the
          manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry 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
E         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 imposition of appropriate punishment."

      13. While considering this aspect, the Apex Court in the
F case of Mahesh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
  (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
G         punishment for the appellants would be to render the
          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 the
H         need for a reformative approach in the sentencing process.
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]717

       "                                                              A

      14. In the case of Hazara Singh versus Raj Kumar, (2013)
9 SCC 516, this Court has observed that it is the duty of the
courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an
appropriate sentence. The iegislature has bestowed upon the           B
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
nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of
proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at         C
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
 committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the
 offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of
 proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.        D

    15. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2006)
2 SCC 359, the Apex Court opined that

     "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting
                                                                      E
     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 law.
     Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living
     law mu~t find answer to the new challenges and the courts
                                                                      F
     are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the
     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         G
     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     H
    718       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2015] 1 S.C.R.


A         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 wh.ere it warrants to be. The facts and given
          circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the
B         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 whi~h would enter into the
          area of consideration.
c         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
D         sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the
          manner in which it was executed or committed, etc."

       16. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein
  Va/i Mohammed Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC
E 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 by
          imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the
F
          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. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre
          sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on
G         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 for and
          strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the
          sentencing system.
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 719


    100. Justice demands that courts should impose                  A
    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 but the
    society at large while considering the imposition of
    appropriate punishment. The court will be failing in its duty   B
    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."

     17. We again reiterate in this case that undue sympathy        C
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 executed or committed. The sentencing        D
courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and
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      E
considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre
sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without
considering the degre~ of the offence will be counter-productive
in the long run and against the interest of the society.
                                                                    F
      18. Recently, in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281 and State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Surendra Singh, 2014 (12) SCALE 672, after considering
and following the earlier decisions, this Court reiterated the
settled proposition of law that one of the prime objectives of      G
criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate
punishment which commensurate with gravity, 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
                                                                    H
    720        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that
    it shocks the conscience of the society. It 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.
B
       19. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the High
  Court would show that while reducing the sentence to the
  period already undergone, the High Court has not considered
  the law time and again laid down by this Court. Hence the
  impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the
C matter is remanded back to the High Court to pass a fresh order
  in the revision petition taking into consideration the law
  discussed hereinabove after giving an opportunity of hearing
  to the parties. The appeal is accordingly allowed with the
  aforesaid direction.
D
    Kalpana K. Tripathy         Appeal allowed and remitted to High Court.