Supreme Court of India
SUMER SINGHversusSURAJBHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 969
- Decided
- 5 May 2014
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- S MUKHOPADHAYA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reduction of the sentence to seven days was manifestly inadequate; the conviction stands and the sentence must be enhanced to two years rigorous imprisonment (plus the fine).
Summary
The case concerns a criminal appeal filed by the injured party, Sumer Singh, under Article 136 of the Constitution seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed on Surajbhan Singh and others for grievous hurt (IPC s.326) and related offences arising from a land dispute. The High Court had reduced the sentence to the seven days already served and imposed a fine, without providing reasons. The Supreme Court examined whether the reduction was manifestly inadequate, whether the accused could rely on a claim of private defence, and whether the principles of Section 377(3) CrPC apply to a special leave appeal. It held that the defence of private defence was not established, the High Court’s reduction was unjustified, and the court has wide discretion under Article 136 to impose an adequate sentence. Consequently, the conviction was upheld and the sentence was enhanced to two years rigorous imprisonment (plus the fine).
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence to seven days for offences including IPC s.326.
- Whether the accused can successfully claim the right of private defence.
- Whether Section 377(3) of the CrPC is applicable to appeals under Article 136.
- Whether the Supreme Court can enhance the sentence in a special leave appeal despite the statutory framework.
- Whether the sentence imposed is proportionate and adequate to the gravity of the offence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. s.377(3), s. s.386
- Constitution of Indias. Art.136
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. s.147, s. s.148, s. s.149, s. s.307, s. s.308, s. s.323, s. s.324, s. s.326, s. s.34, s. s.447
Subjects
special leaveArticle 136sentence enhancementinadequate sentenceprivate defenceIPC 326proportionate punishmentjudicial discretioncriminal appeal
Judgment
[2014) 5 S.C.R. 882
A SUMER SINGH
v.
SURAJBHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 942 of 2014)
MAY 05, 2014
8
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
c
Art. 136 - Special leave to appeal - Held: An injured
aggrieved party can prefer an appeal by special leave and
power of Supreme Court under Art. 136 being of wide
amplitude, it can remove injustice and impose adequate
0 sentence when facts and circumstances so warrant - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 377(3).
Appeal:
Criminal appeal by State for enhancement of sentence
E - Held: In such an appeal, accused can plead for his acquittal
on establishing that there is no material on record to sustain
·his conviction.
Criminal Law:
F Right of private defence - Hand of victim chpped off over
a land dispute - Held: Exercise of right of private defence
even if not specifically taken in statement uls 313, CrPC, it
can always be gathered from facts and circumstances - In
the instant case7 on the basis of evidence of record, a finding
G has been returned by trial court that on the day of occurrence,
possession of land in dispute was with the victim and others,
and accused had no right to forcibly evict them - Further,
victims were not armed with weapons and were peacefully
carrying on their agricultural activities when accused persons
H 882
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 883
A
came armed with weapons and attacked the - Injuries on
assailants were a/so absolutely simple in nature :- Therefore,
it cannot be said that the defence has been able to establish
the plea of right of private defense, nor does the question of
exceeding the said right arise.
B
Penal Code, 1860:
s.326, 307 and 3231149 - Grievous injuries caused to
victims by accused over a land dispute - Hand of victim from
wrist chopped off - Conviction and sentence of 5 years RI with c
a fine uls 307 !PC and 4 years RI with a fine u/s 326 !PC -
High Court on appeal upholding conviction u/s 326 /PC but
reducing sentence to period already undergone i.e. 7 days -
Held: No reason has been ascribed by High Court for
reducing the sentence - Manner in which the crime was
0
committed speaks eloquently about its brutality - The gravity
of the offence speaks for itself - A young man's hand has
been cut off from the wrist - The fear psychosis that would have
reigned in the society at the relevant time has to be perceived
- High Court while reducing the sentence to the period
already undergone, i.e., seven days for such an offence, failed E
to take these aspects into consideration and possibly felt that
increase of fine amount would serve the cause of justice -
Increase in fine amount or grant of compensation under the
Code would not be a justified answer in law - Interference in
manifestly inadequate and unduly lenient sentence is the F·
justifiable warrant, for the Court cannot Close its eyes to the
agony and anguish of the victim and, eventually, to the cry of
the society - Therefore, striking the balance, the ·cause of
justice would be best subserved if the responden-accused is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years G
apart from the fine that has been imposed by the trial judge
- Ordered accordingly. ·
Sentence/Sentencing:
Reduction of sentence - High Court reducing the H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A sentence of 5 years RI to period already undergone i.e. 7
days and increasing the fine amount - Held: Though the
question of sentence is a matter of discretion, yet the said
discretion cannot be used by a court in a fanciful and
whimsical manner - Very strong reasons on consideration of
B relevant factors have to form the fulcrum for lenient use of said
discretion - Judges are to constantly remind themselves that
use of discretion has to be guided by law, and what is fair
under the obtaining circumstances - It has come to the
notice of the Court that in certain heinous crimes or crimes
c committed in a brutal manner High Courts in exercise of
appellate jurisdiction have imposed extremely lenient
sentences which shock the conscience - It should not be so
- It is the duty of the court to impose adequate sentence, for
one of the purposes of imposition of requisite sentence is
0 protection of society and a legitimate response to collective
conscience - The paramount guiding principle should be that ·
punishment should be proportionate - Judicial notice.
The respondents were prosecuted for commission of
offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 326 and
E 447 IPC. The case of the prosecution was that on the
stated date and time, when PW4, PW5 and PW7 were
carrying out certain agricultural activities in their field with
the help of a tractor, accused-respondent no. 1 armed
with a sword and other accused respondents armed with
F lathis came there and stopped the tractor and when PW4
and PW6 tried to defend the driver of the tractor, the
accused attacked them with their weapons. Accused-
respondent no. 1 attacked PW4 with the sword and
chopped off his left hand from the wrist. The injured were
G taken to the hospital and an FIR was lodg.ed by PW5. The
trial court convicted accused-respondent no. 1 and
sentenced him to RI for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 3000/-
u/s 307 IPC. He .was further convicted and sentenced to
4 years RI and a fine of Rs. 2000/- u/s 326 IPC. He was
H also convicted and sentenced u/s 323/149 IPC. The other
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 885
accused persons were convicted and sentenced to 3 A
years RI with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 307/149 IPC.
They were also sentenced to various terms of
imprisonment for ot1:ter offences. On appeal, the High
Court found accused-respondent no. 1 guilty of offences
u/ss. 308, 148, 447, 326 and 323/149 IPC and sentenced B
him to the imprisonment already undergone i.e. 7 days
and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000. The High Court also held
other accused respondents guilty of offences u/ss. 324/
149, 147, 447 and 323 IPC, but restricted the sentence to
the period already undergone in respect of some of them c
and released others u/ss. 4 and 12 of Probation of
Offenders Act. Two of the accused respondents were
directed to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each. Aggrieved,
PW4 filed the appeal.
Allowing the appeal in part, the court D
HELD: 1.1. From the enunciation of law laid down by
this Court, two principles are absolutely clear; first, an
injured who is an aggrieved party can prefer an appeal
by special leave and this Court's power under Art. 136 E
of the Constitution of India being of wide amplitude, it can
remove injustice when it witnesses it; ana second, in an
appeal preferred by State for enhancement of sentence
the accused can plead that he is entitled to an acquittal
as there is no material on record to sustain the conviction. F
[Para 14] [900-D-E]
State of UP. v. Dharmendra Singh and another 1999 (3)
Suppl. SCR 52 = (1999) 8 SCC 325; Nihal Singh v. State
of Punjab 1964 SCR 5 =AIR 1965 SC 26; Chandrakant
Patilv. State through CBI 1998 (1) SCR 447 = (1998) 3 SCC G
38; U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay 1955 SCR 94 =AIR
1955 SC 633; State of Rajasthan v. Kish an Lal 2002 (3)
SCR 1066 = (2002) 5 SCC 424; P.S.R. Sadhanantham v.
Arunachalam and another (1980) 3 sec 141; and Esher
H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Singh v. State of A.P. 2004 (2) SCR 1180 = (2004) 11 sec
585 - referred to.
1.2. In the case at hand, the State has not preferred
any appeal but the injured has been permitted to file the
8 appeal after obtaining leave. The principles which are
analogous to 377 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 are applicable and the power under Art. 136 of the
Constitution is of wide amplitude. Thus viewed, this
Court, can impose adequate sentence when the facts and
C circumstance so warrant. [para 15] [900-E-G]
2.1. As regards the plea of right of private defence
raised by the accused-respondents, it is well settled in
law that exercise of right of private defence even if not
specifically taken in s. 313 of the Code it can always be
D gathered from surrounding facts arid ci.rcumstances.
[Para 16] [901-B, CJ
Vidya Singh v. The State of M;;idhya Pradesh AIR 1971
SC 1857; Sikandar Singh and Others v. State of Bihar 20.10
E (8) SCR 373 = (2010) 7 SCC 477; and State of Rajasthan v.
Manoj Kumar (2014) 4 SCALE 724 - relied on.
2.2. In the instant case, on the basis of the evidence
on record a finding has been returned by the trial court
that on the day of occurrence, possession of the land in
F dispute was with PW-4, and others and the accused had
no right to forcibly evict them. Further, it is manifest from
the evidence on record that the victims were not armed
with weapons and were peacefully carrying on their
agricultural activities when the accused persons came
G armed with weapons and attacked them. The injury
reports of PW-4, PW6 and another contained in Ext. P-17
to Ext. P-19 clearly show that they had received injuries
and the injuries inflicted on PW4 were grievous in nature.
Th~ injuries sustained by other victims as opined by the
H treating doctor, were caused by sharp weapon. On the
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 887
other hand, the injuries on assailants were absolutely A
simple in nature. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
defence has been able to establish the plea of right of
private defense, nor does the question of exceeding the
said right arise. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is
that the accused persons had assaulted the injured B
persons and the High Court has correctly recorded the
conviction against the respondent u/s 326 IPC. [Para 17)
[901-F-G; 902-A-B, C, 0-E]
3.1. However, no reason whatsoever has been
ascribed by the High Court for reducing the sentence. The C
manner in which the crime was committed speaks
eloquently about its brutality. The gravity of the offence
speaks for itself. A young man's hand has been cut off
from the wrist. The fear psychosis that would have
reigned in the society at the relevant time has to be D
perceived. The High Court while reducing the sentence
to the period already undergone, i.e., seven days for such
an offence, failed to take these aspects into consideration
and possibly felt that increase of fine amount would
serve the cause of justice. [Para 28) [907-E-H] E
Sham Sunder v. Puran and another 1990 (1) Suppl.
SCR 662 = AIR 1991 SC 8; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Najab Khan and others (2013) 9 SCC 509; Hazara Singh v.
Raj Kumar and others (2013) 9SCC 516; Sevaka Perumal
and anotherv. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 (2) SCR 711 = (1991) F
3 SCC 471; Mahesh v. State of M.P. 1987 (2) SCR 710 =
(1987) 3 sec 80; State of M.P. v. Saleem alias Chamaru and
another 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 562 = (2005) 5 SCC 554; Ravji
alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan 1995 (6) Suppl.
SCR 195 = (1996) 2 SCC 175; State of Karnataka v. G
Krishnappa 2000 (2) SCR761 =AIR 2000 SC 1470; Shyam
Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 77; Guru
Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka 2012 (8) SCR 189 = (2012)
8 SCC 734; and Rattiram v. State of M.P. 2012 (3) SCR 496
= (2012) 4 SC 516-" relied on. H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 (15) SCR 712 =
(2010) 12 sec 532 - referred to.
'3.2. Though the question of sentence is a matter of
discretion, yet the said discretion cannot be used by a
B court of law in a fanciful and whimsical manner. Very
strong reasons on consideration of the relevant factors
have to form the fulcrum for lenient use of the said
discretion. The judges are to constantly remind
themselves that the use of discretion has to be guided
by law, and what is f'air under the obtaining
c circumstances. [para 29 and 31] [908-B-C; 909-F-G]
Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Invest Import 1981
(1) SCR 899 = AIR 1981 SC 2085; and Mis. Aero Traders
Pvt. Ltd. v. Rvinder Kumar Suri AIR 2005 SC 15 - referred
..[) to.
The Nature of the Judicial Process, Yale University
Press, 1921 Edn., p.114 by Benjamin N. Cardozo - Book
referred to.
E
4.1. It is the duty of the court to impose adequate
sentence, for one of the purposes of imposition of
requisite sentence is protection of the society and a
1egitimate response to the collective conscience. The
paramount guiding principle should be that the
IF punishment should be proportionate. While imposing the
'
sentence it is the court's accountability to remind itself
about its role and the reverence for rule of law. It must
evince the rationalized judicial discretion and not an
individtlal perception or a moral propensity. [Para 32]
G [909-G-H; 910-A-B]
· 4.2. In the instant case, increase in fine amount or
grant of compensation under the Code would not be a
justified answer in law. Interference in manifestly
.H inadequate and unduly lenient sentence is the justifiable
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 889
warrant, for the court cannot close its eyes to the agony A
and anguish of the victim and, eventually, to the cry of
the ~ociety. Therefore, striking the balance, the cause of
justice would be best sub-served if the respondent is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two
years apart from the fine that has been imposed by the B
trial judge. [Para 32] [910-D-F]
4.3. It has come to the notice of this Court that in
certain heinous crimes or crimes committed in a brutal
manner the High Courts in exercise of the appellate
jurisdiction have imposed extremely lenient sentences C
which shock the conscience. It should not be so. [Para
33] [910-G-H]
4.4. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the
trial court as well as by the High Court is maintained and D
the sentence imposed by the trial Judge and that by the
High Court is modified to the extent that the accused-
respondent is sentenced to 2 years RI apart from the fine
that has been imposed by the trial court. [Para 36] [911-
C-D] E
Case Law Reference
1999 (3) Suppl. SCR52 referred to Para 10
1964 SCR 5 referred to Para 10
F
1955 SCR 94 referred to Para 10
2002 (3) SCR 1066 referred to Para 11
(1980) 3 sec 141, referred to Para 12
G
2004 (2) SCR 1180 referred to Para 13
AIR1971 SC 1857 relied on Para 16
2010 (8) SCR 373 relied on Para 16
H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 5 S.C.R.
A (2014) 4 SCALE 724 relied on Para 16
1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 662 relied on. Para 18
(2013) 9 sec 509 relied on Para 19
B (2013) 9SCC 516 relied on . Para 19
1991 (2) SCR 711 relied on Para 20
1987 (2) SCR 71 O relied on Para 21
2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 562 relied on Para 22
c
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 195 referred to Para 23
2000 (2) SCR761 relied on Para 24
(2013) 1 sec 11 relied on Para 25
D
2012 (8) SCR 189 relied on Para 26
2012 \3) SCR 496 relied on Para 27
200S ,;:;;,s(."112 relied on Para 27
E 1981 (1) SCR 899 referred to Para 30
AIR 2005 SC 15 referred to Para 31
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 942
of 2014.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 2nd July, 2009 in
SBCRL No. 455/1984, of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.
Sushi! Kr. Jain, Puneet Jain, Manish Sharma, Navdeep
Singh, Khushbu Jain, Pratibha Jain for the Appellant.
G
Ratnakar Dass, D.K. Thakur, Sushi! Kumar, Dr. V.P.
Appan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 891
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The centripodal question that arises A
for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, preferred by
the injured, is, whether the learned single Judge of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, while
converting the conviction of the respondent-accusec from one
under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 308 IPC and B
.
sustaining the conviction
.
under Sections 148, 147, 326 and 323
IPC read with Section 149 IPC is justified in restricting the
period of sentence to seven days which the respondent had
already undergone and to impose a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to suffer additional rigorous C
imprisonment of two years.
2. The factual score, as has been undraped, is that on
19.7.1982 about 3.30 p.m. when Sumer Singh, PW-4, J;mak
Singh, PW-5, and his younger brother Jai Singh, PW-7, having
0
availed a tractor of another person, were carrying out certain
agricultural operation in their field, accused persons, namely,
Surajbhan Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Vikram Singh, Surendra
Singh and Prithvi Raj alias Pappu, being armed with weapons,
arrived at the field. Accused Surajbhan Singh was carrying a
sword ana other accused persons were having lathis. On E
coming to the field, the accused persons stopped the tractor
and Sumer Singh, PW-4, and Mool Singh, PW-6, came to
defend the driver of the tractor. At that juncture, accused Vikram
Singh gave a lathi blow on Mool Singh, PW-6, and Surajbhan
inflicted a sword injury on the left elbow of Mool Singh, PW-6. F
Thereafter, when he attacked Sumer Singh on the head with
the sword, he put his hand in defence, as a consequence of
which the sword hit the wrist of the left hand due to which the
hand got chopped off from the wrist and Sumer Singh lost his
consciousness and collapsed. As the narration would further G
show, the accused persons assaulted others and left the place.
Jai Singh, PW-7, and the driver of the tractor took the injured
persons to Rajgarh Hospital where they were admitted and the
First Information Report was lodged by Janak Singh, PW-5, and
H
892 SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
'
A on the base of the F.l.R. crime was registered for offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 326 and 447 IPC.
3. After the criminal law was set in motion, the investigation
commenced and, eventually, the charge-sheet was placed
8 before the learned Magistrate, who committed the matter to the
Court of Session. The accused persons refuted the allegations
and stated that they had been falsely implicated due to land
disputes. Because of such a plea, matter was tried by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar.
C During the trial the prosecution examined 24 witnesses and
brought on record 37 documents which are marked as exhibits.
The defence, in support of its plea, examined two witnesses
and got certain documents exhibited. •
4. The learned trial Judge appreciating the evidence on
D record, convicted Surajbhan Singh under Section 307 IPC for
a
five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/- and
in default to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
Under Section 447 IPC three months rigorous imprisonment,
under Section 32~ IPC four years rigorous imprisonment and
E fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to further undergo one year
rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323/149 IPC three
months rigorous imprisonment. As far as other accused
persons, namely, Prithvi Raj @ Pappu, Surendra Singh, Vikram
Singh and Bhanwar Singh are concerned, each one of them
F was convicted under Section 147 IPC to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months, under Section 447 IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 307/149
IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to
pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo
G further rigorous imprispnment for one year and for offence
under Section 323 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for six months
with the stipulation that all the sentences would be concurrent.
5. Grieved by the aforesaid judgment and conviction the
accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 1984
H
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 893
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
and the High Court, as far as Surajbhan Singh is concerned, A
found him guilty for offence under Sections 308, 148, 447, 326
and 323/149 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of
seven days which he had already undergone and to pay a fine
of Rs.50,000/-. As far as other accused-appellants. were
concerned, the High Court found them guilty for offences under 8
Sections 324/149, 147, 447 and 323 IPC and considering their
age, restricted the sentence to the period already undergone
in respect of some and released some of them under Sections
4 and 12 of Probation of Offenders Act. As far as accused-
appe Ila nts Prithvi Raj @ Pappu and Vikram Singh are c
concerned a fine amount of Rs.15,000/-was imposed. The High
Court has further directed that the fine amount by all the accused
persons to be deposited within three months with the stipulation
that the same shall be paid to the injured Sumer Singh and on
their failure to deposit the amount of fine to suffer rigorous o
imprisonment for two years.
6. We have heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior
counsel for the respondent No. 1. Be it noted, as the respondent
No. 5 has died during the pendency of the proceedings before E
this Court, the appeal abates against him. At the outset, we
must record that Mr. Jain has confined his submissions to the
imposition of inadequacy of sentence on Surajbhan Singh and,
we are inclined to think, rightly so. Criticizing the justifiability of
the reduction of sentence to seven days under Section 326 IPC F
Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel, has contended that by such a
lenient delineation especially regard being had to the
circumstances under which the crime was committed and the
severity of the crime is a mockery of the criminal justice
dispensation system because the plight of the victim who has G
suffered a grievous injury as a consequence of which has lost
the use of his left hand permanently. That apart, submits Mr.
Jain, imposition of such an inadequate sentence is a travesty
of justice and its impact on the collective in the absence of any
special features and circumstances, is not only extremely H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A painful but also would a~t as a catalyst for destroying the fabric
of rule of law. The learned senior counsel would contend that
in such a case only graht of compensation does not subserve
the cause of justice but: on the contrary destroys the milieu of
an orderly society. · 1
B I
7. Mr. Dash, learn~d senior counsel appearing for the
respondent, in his turn1 has propounded that the conviction
recorded is absolutely flawed and, in fact, if the circumstances
would have been properly appreciated keeping in view the
C factum that the accused persons had exercised their right of
private defence, the cas~ would have ended in acquittal. It is
urged by him that assuming that it would have been held that
they had exceeded rig~t of private defence even then the
offence would have converted to one punishable under Section
324 IPC and in that bacKground, restriction of the sentence to
D the period already under$one could have not invited the frown
of the concept of just and 1adequate sentence. It is urged by him
that occurrence had taken I
place long back; and there was a
cavil over possession and further in the interregnum period
nothing has been brought~ on record that the accused has been
E involved in any criminal offence and, therefore, the order of
sentence does not call fof any interference.
8. First we intend to deal with the submission of Mr. Dash
whether in an appeal pre~erred by the injured, the convict can
F question the legal substantiality of his conviction. In this regard,
reference to Section 377(~) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(for short "the Code")
- wot.lid
• beM.apt. It reads as follows: -
"377. Appeal by the State Government against
sentence. - (1) ' ............ .
G
(2) ........... ..
(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence
on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Session or,
H as the case rr:ay be, the High Court shall not enharace the
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 895
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable A
opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement
and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his
acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence." ·
9. Section 386 of the Code, being relevant, is reproduced
B
below: -
"386. Powers of the Appellate Court. - After perusing
such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he
appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he appears, and in
case of an appeal under Section 377 or Section 378, the C'
accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it
considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering,
dismiss the appeal, or may -
(a) in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse o
such order and direct that further inquiry be made,
or that the accused be re-tried or committed for
trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass
sentence on him according to law;
(b) in an appeal from a conviction - E
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried
by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to
such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or F
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, after the
nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the
sentence, but not so as to enhance the same; G
(c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence -
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried
H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 5 S.C.R.
A by a Court competent to try the offence, or
(ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the
nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the
B , , , sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same;
(d) in an appeal from any other order, altef,6r reverse such
order;
(e) make any amendment or any consequential or
c incidental order that may be just or proper:
Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless
the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause
against such enhancement:
D
Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not
inflict greater punishment for the offence which in its
opinion the accused has committed than might have been
inflicted for that offence by the Court passing the order or
E sentence under appeal."
10. Section 377(3), and its effect, and application in appeal
preferred after grant of special leave were considered in State
of U.P. v. Dharmendra Singh and another', wherein the two-
Judge Bench has ruled that a perusal of said provision shows
F that it is applicable only when the matter is before the High
Court and the same is not applicable to this Court when an
appeal for enhancement of sentence is made under Article 136
of the Constitution. It is to be noted that an appeal to this Court
in criminal matters is not provided under the Code except in
G cases covered by Section 379 of the Code. It ha~ been further
observed that an appeal to this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution is not the same as a statutory appeal under the
Code, for this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not
H 1. (1998) a sec 325,
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 897
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
a regular court of appeal to which an accused can approach A
as of right. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is exercisable
only in exceptional cases when this Court is satisfied that it
should interfere to prevent a grave or serious miscarriage of
justice, as distinguished from mere error in appreciation of
evidence. Proceeding further the court held: .B
"While exercising this jurisdiction, this Co~rt is not bound
by the rules of procedure as applicable to the courts below.
This Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution is limited only by its own discretion (see Niha/
Singh v. State of Punjab 2). In that view of the matter, we C
are of the opinion that Section 377(3) of the Code in terms
does not apply to an appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
Thereafter, the Court relied upon the authority in D
Chandrakant Patil v. State through CB/3 and distinguished
the decision in U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay4 and
came to hold as follows: -
'This does not mean that this Court will be unmindful of the E
principles analogous to those found in the Code including
those under Section 377(3) of the Code while moulding a
procedure for the disposal of an appeal under Article 136
of the Constitution. Apart from the Supreme Court Rules
applicable for the disposal of the criminal appeals in this
Court, the Court also adopts such analogous principles F
found in the Code so as to make the procedure a "fair
procedure" depending on the facts and circumstances of
the case."
Eventually, the Court convicted the respondent to argue for G
an acquittal in the appeal preferred by the State of U.P.
2. AIR 1965 SC 26.
3. (1998) 3 sec 38.
4. AIR 1955 SC 633. H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A for enhancement of the sentence by adopting the
analogous provision found in Section 377(3) of the Code.
11. Relying on the said decision in State of Rajasthan v.
Kishan Lal5, the Court thought that it was an appropriate case
where it should permit the learned amicus curiae to argue for
8
acquittal of the respondent and, eventually, reversed the
judgment of conviction and acquitted the respondent of all the
charges levelled against him.
12. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the decision by
C the Constitution Bench in P. S. R. Sadhanantham v.
Arunachalam and another6. In the said case, the petitioner, an
accused, was convicted in appeal by way of special leave
preferred by the brother of the deceased who was not even the
first informant. The convict-petitioner preferred a writ petition
D under Article 32 of the Constitution to upset the conviction on
the ground that the proceedings were unconstitutional being
violative of Article 21. The Constitution Bench, adverting to the
same, opined that though Article 136 does not confer a right
of appeal on a party as such in express terms, yet it confers a
E wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in
suitable cases. The discretionary dimension is considerable but
that relates to the power of the Court. The larger Bench
proceeded to state thus: -
"In our view, it does. Article 136 is a special jurisdiction.
F It is residuary power; it is extraordinary in its amplitude, its
limit, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself. This Court
functionally fulfils itself by reaching out to injustice wherever
it is and this power is largely derived in the common run
of cases from Article 136."
G
The Court further analyzing the point, observed that:-
s. (2002) s sec 424.
H e. (1980.) 3 sec 141.
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 899
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
"We have hardly any doubt that here is a procedure A
necessarily implicit in the power vested in the summit court.
It must be remembered that Article 136 confers jurisdiction
on the highest court. The founding fathers unarguably
intended in the very terms of Article 136 that it shall be
exercised by the highest judges of the land with scrupulous B
adherence to judicial principles well established by
precedents in our jurisprudence."
Thereafter, the larger Bench proceeded to observe as
follows: -
c
"9. We may eye the issue slightly differently. If Article 21
is telescoped into Article 136, the conclusion follows that
fair procedure is imprinted on the special leave that the
court may grant or refuse. When a motion is made for leave
to appeal against an acquittal, this Court appreciates the D
gravity of the peril to personal liberty involved in that
proceeding. It is fair to assume that while considering the
petition under Article 136 the court will pay attention to the
question of liberty, the person who seeks such leave from
the court, his motive and his locus standi and the weighty E
factors which persuade the court to grant special leave.
When this conspectus of processual circumstances and
criteria play upon the jurisdiction of the court under Article
136, it is reasonable to conclude that the desideratum of
fair procedure implied in Article 21 ·is adequately F
answered.
10. Once we hold that Article 136 is a composite provision
which vests a wide jurisdiction and, by the very fact of
entrusting this unique jurisdiction in the Supreme Court,
postulates, inarticulately though, the methodology of G
exercising that power, nothing more remains in the
objection of the petitioner. It is open to the court to grant
special leave and the subsequent process of hearing are
(sic is) well-established. Thus, there is an integral provision
H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A of power-cum-procedure which answers with the
desideratum of Article 21 justifying deprivation of life and
· liberty."
13. The said principle has been reiterated in Esher Singh
B v. State of A.P. 7 by stating that this Court can entertain appeals
against acquittal by the High Court at the instance of interested
private parties, for the circumstances that the Code does not
provide for an appeal to the High. Court against an order of
acquittal by a subordinate court, atthe instance of the private
c party, has no relevance to the question of the power of this
Court under Article 136.
14. From the aforesaid enunciation of law two principles
are absolutely clear; first, an injured who is an aggrieved party
can prefer an appeal by special leave and this Court's power
D under Artiele 136 being of wide amplitude, it can remove
injustice when it witnesses it and second, in an appeal
preferred by State for enhancement of sentence the accused
can plead that he is entitled to an acquittal as there is n_o
material on record to sustain the conviction. ··
E
15. In the case at hand, the State has not preferred any
appeal but the injured has been permitted to file the appeal affer
obtaining leave. We have already stated that the principles
which are analogous to 377 (3) of the Code are applicable and
F the power under Article 136 is of wide amplitude. Thus viewed,
we do not see any reason why this Court, while entertaining an
appeal at the instance of an injured, cannot impose adequate
sentence when the facts and circumstance so warrant. But prior
to that, for applying the requisite test, we should appreciate the
G material on record to come to a conclusion whether the
recording of conviction is unjustified, and whether the High Court
has absolutely erred in restricting the sentence to the period
already undergone.
H ·7. (2004) 11 sec 585
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 901
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
16. Presently, to the delineation on the first score. As stated A
earlier, the singular contention of Mr. Dash is that the accused
persons exercised their right of private defence and even
assuming they exceeded that right, they could only have been
convicted for a lesser offence. Per contra, Mr. Jain would
contend that no plea for exercise of right of private defence was B
taken under Section 313 of the Code. Statement and, in any
case, the appellants had done nothing· to provoke the accused
persons to commit the crime in such a heinous manner. It is
well settled in law that exercise of right of private defence even
if not specifically taken in Section 313 of the Code, it can always c
be gathered from surrounding facts and circumstances. The
said position has been stated in Vidya Singh v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh 8 , Sikandar Singh and Others v. State of
Bihar9 and State of Rajasthan v. Mano} Kumar10 .
17. In the instant case, the trial court has held that it is D
undisputed that by the judgment, Ex. P4, of the Revenue,
Appellate Officer, Alwar the decision about the disputed field
was given in favour of the Sumer Singh, PW-4 and Janak'
Singh, PW-5, and order was issued about giving the
possession to these persons from the Receiver. Ram Bilas, E
PW-15, Patwari, had delivered possession of the land in
compliance of the said order of the Revenue Appellate Officer
and it is clear from the evidence brought on record. It is
demonstrable that the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh, took
possession of this land from the Receiver and handed it over F
to Sumer Singh on 14.4.1982. A finding has been returned that
on the day of occurrence, that is, 19.7.1982 possession was
with Sumer Singh, PW-4, and others and the accused had no
weapons and peacefully carrying on their agricultural activities
when the accused persons came armed with weapon and G
attacked them. The injury reports of Sumer Singh, PW-4, Mool
8. AIR 1971 SC 1857.
9. (2010) 7 sec 477.
10. (2014) 4 SCALE 724. H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Singh and Umrao Singh contained in Ext. P-17 to Ext. P-19
clearly show that they had received injuries and the injuries
inflicted on Sumer Singh were grievous in nature. The injuries
sustained by Mool Singh and Umarao Singh, as opined by the
treating doctor, were caused by sharp weapon. Mr. Dash,
B learned senior counsel for the respondent would contend that
the accused persons had also received injuries and that would
show that they were in possession and while defending their
right there was a fight which establishes exercise of right of
private defense and possibly exceeding the said right. On a
C scrutiny of the injury report, it appears that the injuries were
absolutely simple in nature. Regard being had to the finding
recorded on the basis of evidence as regards the possession
of the injured persons and also the nature of injuries sustained
by the accused persons, it cannot be said that the defence had
been able to establish the plea of right of exercise of private
0
defense, the question of exceeding the said right does not arise.
Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that the accused
persons had assaulted the injured persons and the High Court
has correctly recorded the conviction against the respondent
under Section 326 IPC.
E
18. ThE! next question that is required to be addressed is
whether adequate sentence has been imposed for the offence
under Section 326 IPC regard being had to the injuries caused.
In Sham Sunder v. Puran and another11 , the High Court had
F convicted the accused-appellant therein under Section 304
Part-I IPC and reduced the sentence to the term of
imprisonment already undergone, i.e. six months, while
enhancing the fine. In that context, the Court opined that the
sentence awarded was rather inadequate. Proceeding further
G it has been opined as follows: -
"No particular reason has been given by the High Court
for awarding such sentence. The court in fixing the
H 11. AIR 1991 SC '8.
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 903
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
punishment for any particular crime should take into A
consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances
in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation
shown by the offender. The measure of punishment should
be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The sentence
imposed by the High Court appears to be so grossly and B
entirely inadequate as to involve a failure of justice. We are
of opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the sentence
has to be enhanced."
After so stating the Court enhanced the sentenced to one C
of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
19. In Sevaka Perumal and another v. State of Tamil
Nadu 12, after referring. to the decision in Mahesh v. State of
M.P. 13, the Court observed that undue sympathy to impose
inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system D
to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and
society could not long endure under serious threats. The Court
further observed that if the courts do not protect the injured, the
injured would then resort to private vengeance and, therefore,
the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard E
to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was
executed or committed.
20. In State of M.P. v. Saleem alias Chamaru and
another14 , the Court opined that the object of sentencing should F
be to protect society and to deter the criminal that bing the
avowed object of law. It further ruled that 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.
G
12. (1991) 3 sec 471.
13. (1987) 3 sec 80.
14. (2005) 5 sec 554. H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A 21. In Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan 15
the Court while giving emphasis on relevance of imposition of
adequate sentencing in the social context observed thus:-
10. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate
B punishment is not awarded for a crime wliich has been
committed not only against the individual victim but also
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 conform to and be consistent with
the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been
c perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warraoting public
abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for
justice against the criminal". In our view, if for such heinous
crimes the most deterrent punishment for wanton and
brutal murders is not given, the cas·e of deterrent
0 punishment will lose its relevance."
22. In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa 16 , a three-Judge
Bench, while discussing about the purpose of imposition of
adequate sentence, opined that protection of society and
E deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is
required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence
and 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
F gravity of the offence.
23. In Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh 17 , the trial court
had convicted the appellant therein under Section 308 IPC
along with another and punished them with two years rigorous
imprisonment. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the
G appellant were affirmed. By the time the matter came to be
considered by this Court, the appellant had already undergone
15. (1996) 2 sec 175.
16. AIR 2000 SC 1470.
H 17. (2010) 12 sec 532.
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 905
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
eight months in custody. While reducing the sentence, the Court A
observed as under: -
"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
8
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 of the
crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons C
used and all other attending circumstances are relevant
facts which would enter into the area of consideration.
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 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."
E
24. In Sh yam Narain v. State (NCT of Oe/hi} 18 , it has been
ruled that primarily it is to be borne in mind that sentencing for
any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be imposed
regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner
in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental
F
purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that
the accused must realize that the crime.committed by him has
not only created a dent in his life but also a concavity in the
social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is designed so
that the individuals in the society which ultimately constitute the
collective do not suffer time and again for such crimes, for it G
serves as a deterrent. The Court observed, true it is, on certain
occasions, opportunities may be granted to the convict for
reforming himself but it is equally true that the principle of
1s. (2013) 7 sec n. H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A proportionality between an offence committed and the penalty
imposed are to be kept in view. It has been further opined that
while carrying out this complex exercise, it is obligatory on the
part of the court to see the impact of the offence on the society
as a whole and its ramifications on the immediate collective
B as well as its repercussions on the victim.
25. In Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka 19 , the Court,
discussing about the sentencing policy, had to say this: -
"33. There can hardly be any cavil that there has to be a
C proportion between the crime and the punishment. 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 collective
for justice which includes adequate punishment cannot be
D lightly ignored."
~
26. In Rattiram v. State of M.P. 20 though in a different
context, it has stated that: -
"64 . ... the criminal jurisprudence, with the passage of
E time, has laid emphasis on victimology which fundamentally
is a perception of a trial from the viewpoint of the criminal
as well as the victim. Both are viewed in the social context.
The view of the victim is given due regard and respect in
certain countries .... it is the duty of the court to see that
F the victim's right is protected."
27. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Najab Khan and
others 21 , the State had preferred an appeal as the High Court,
while maintaining the conviction under Section 326 !PC read
G with Section 34 IPC, had reduced the sentence to the period
already undergone, i.e., 14 days. In that context, the Court, after
referring to number of authorities and reiterating the principles,
19. (2012) s sec 734.
20. (2012) 4 SC 516.
H 21. (2013) g sec 509
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 907
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
stated that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt A
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 commission of the crime, the conduct of the
accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending B
circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area
of consideration. It was further observed that undue sympathy
in imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to the
justice dispensation system and undermine the public
confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to c
award proper sentence having regard to 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. After so stating the
D
sentence imposed by the High Court was set aside and that
of the trial Judge, WQereby he had convicted the accused to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, was restored.
Similar principle has been assertively reiterated in Hazara
Singh v. Raj Kumar and others 22 .
E
28. The factual matrix of the instant case has to be tested
on the touchstone of aforesaid principles. On a perusal of the
judgment of the High Court, we find that no reason whatsoever
has been ascribed. The manner in which the crime was
committed speaks eloquently about its brutality. The gravity of F
the offence speaks for itself. A young man's hand has been cut
off from the wrist. How the fear psychosis would have reigned
in the society at the relevant time does not require Solomon's
wisdom to visualize. It is difficult to fathom what possible reason
the High Court could have envisioned or thought of while G
reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, i.e.,
seven days for such an offence. Possibly, the High Court felt
that increase of fine amount would serve the cause of justice
22. (2013) g sec 16. H
908 SU~REME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A and ameliorate the grievance of the victim and pacify the
collective cry. We are not inclined to think so.
29. It is seemly to state here that though the question of
sentence is a matter of discretion, yet the said discretion cannot
be used by a court of law in a fanciful and whimsical manner.
8
Very strong reasons on consideration of the relevant factors
have to form the fulcrum for lenient use of the said discretion. It
is because the ringing of poignant and inimitable expression,
in a way, the warning of Benjamin N. Cardozo in The Nature
of the Judicial Process 23 : -
c
"The Judge even when he is free, is still not wholly free.
He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight errant
roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of
goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated
0 principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to
vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a
discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy,
disciplined by system, and subordinated to 'the primordial
necessity of order in social life'."
E
30. In this regard, we may usefully quote a passage from
Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest lmporl24 :-
" ... when it is said that a matter is within the discretion of
the court it is to be exercised according to well established
F judicial principles, according to reason and fair play, and
not according to whim and caprice. 'Discretion', said Lord
Mansfield in R. v. Wilkes, ((1770) 98 ER 327), 'when
applied to a court of justice, means sound discretion
guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour;
G
23. Yale University Press Edn., p. 114.
24. AIR 1981 SC 2085.
H 25. AIR 2005 SC 15.
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 909
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and A
regular' (see Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn., p. 273)."
31. In Mis. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Rvinder Kumar Suri25
the Court observed: -
"According to Black's Law Dictionary "Judicial discretion" B
means the exercise of judgment by a judge or Court based
cin what is fair under the circumstances and guided by the
rules and principles of law; a Court's power to act or not
act when a litigant is not entitled to demand the act as a
matter of right. The word "discretion" connotes necessarily C
an act of a judicial character, and, as used with reference
to discretion exercised judicially, it implies the absence of
a hard-and-fast rule, and it requires an actual exercise of
judgment and a consideration of the facts and
circumstances which are necessary to make a sound, fair o
and just determination, and a knowledge of the facts upon
which the discretion may properly operate. (See 27
Corpus Juris Secundum page 289). When it is said that
something is to be done within the discretion of the
authorities that something is to be done according to the E
rules of reason and justice and not according to private
opinion; according to law and not humour. It only gives
certain latitude or liberty accorded by statute or rules, to a
judge as distinguished from a ministerial or administrative
official, in adjudicating on matters brought before him."
F
Thus, the judges are to constantly remind themselves that
the use of discretion has to be guided by law, and what is fair
under the obtaining circumstances.
32. Having discussed about the discretion, presently we G
shall advert to the duty of the court in the exercise of power
while imposing sentence for an offence. It is the duty of the court
to impose adequate sentence, for one of the purposes of
imposition of requisite sentence is protection of the society and
a legitimate response to the collective conscience. The H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is
that the punishment should be proportionate. It is the answer
of law to the social conscience. In a way, it is an obligation to
the society which has reposed faith in the court of law to curtail
the evil. While imposing the sentence it is the Court's
B accountability to remind itself about its role and the reverence
for rule of law. It must evince the rationalized judicial discretion
and not an individual perception or a moral propensity. But, if
in the ultimate eventuate the proper sentence is not awarded,
the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotined. Law
C cannot tolerate it; society does not withstand it; and sanctity of
conscience abhors it. The old saying "the law can hunt one's
past" cannot be allowed to be buried in an indecent manner
and the rainbow of mercy, for no fathomable reason, should be
allowed to rule. True it is, it has its own room, but, in all
circumstances, it cannot be allowed to occupy the whole
0
accommodation. The victim, in this case, still cries for justice.
We do not think that increase in fine amount or grant of
compensation under the Code would be a justified answer in
law. Money cannot be the oasis. It cannot assume the centre
stage for all redemption. Interference in manifestly inadequate
E and unduly lenient sentence is the justifiable warrant, for the
Court cannot close its eyes to the agony and anguish of the
victim and, eventually, to the cry of the society. Therefore,
striking the balance we are disposed to think that the cause of
justice would be best subserved if the respondent is sentenced
F to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years apart from the
fine that has been imposed by the learned trial judge.
33. Before parting with the case we are obliged, nay,
painfully constrained to state that it has come to the notice of
G this Court that in certain heinous crimes or crimes committed
in a brutal manner the High Courts in exercise of the appellate
jurisdiction have imposed extremely lenient sentences which
shock the conscience. It should not be so. It should be borne
in mind what Cicero had said centuries ago: -
H
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 911
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
"it can truly be said that the magistrate is a speaking law, A
and the law a silent magistrate."
34. A few decades ago thus spoke Felix Frankfurter: -
"For the highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate
one's personal pulls and one's private views to the law of 8
which we are all guardians - those impersonal convictions
that make a society a civilized community, and not the
victims of personal rule."
35. We part with the aforesaid reminder. c
36. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, the
conviction recorded by the trial court as well as by the High
Court is maintained and the sentence imposed by the learned
trial Judge and that by the High Court is modified to the extent
0
indicated hereinabove.
Rajendra Prasad Appeal partly allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "special leave"Sign in to search