Points
Appeal by informant
- These appeals, by special leave, arise from the judgment and orders1 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana2 , converting the decision of conviction given by the trial court from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter “IPC”) to Section 304-Part II IPC. These appeals have been preferred by the informant/complainant.
Sentencing policy
- On behalf of the accused, it was pointed out that the High Court had, in fact, gone by the salutary principles indicated by this court, in that the relative ages of the accused, their family circumstances, the length of time they spent in custody, as well as the length of time that had elapsed since the commission of the crime, all were considered.
- This court has, time and again, stated that the principle of proportionality should guide the sentencing process. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujara [2009 [8] SCR 719] it was held that the sentence should “deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to (sic break the) law,” and the endeavour should be to impose an “appropriate sentence.” The court also held that imposing “meagre sentences” “merely on account of lapse of time” would be counterproductive. Likewise, in Jameel v. State of U. P [2009 [15] SCR 712] while advocating that sentencing should be fact dependent exercises, the court also emphasised that “the law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.”
- Again, in Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [2012 [8] SCR 189] the court stressed that it “is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order” and that sentencing includes “adequate punishment”. In B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration [1974 (1) SCR 222], the court considered the issue of punishment and observed that punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as well as prevent the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law-abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question of awarding appropriate sentences.
- In Shyam Sunder v Puran & Anr [1990 Suppl [1] SCR 662], the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellate court reduced the sentence to the term of imprisonment already undergone, i.e., six months. However, it enhanced the fine. This court ruled that sentence awarded was inadequate. Proceeding further, it opined that: – “… The court in fixing the punishment for any particular crime should take into 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 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…”. This court enhanced the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. This court has emphasized, in that sentencing depends on the facts, and the adequacy is determined by factors such as “the nature of crime, the manner in which it is committed, the propensity shown and the brutality reflected” [Ravda Sashikala v State of Andhra Pradesh – 2017 [2] SCR 379]. Other decisions, like: State of M.P. v. Bablu [2014 [9] S.C.R. 467]; Raj Kumar [2013 (5) SCR 979] and State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi [2015 (3) SCR 590] too, have stressed the significance and importance of imposing appropriate, “adequate” or “proportionate” punishments.
- In the present case, the High Court noted the respective ages of the accused-i.e., Krishan (61 years); Raju (40 years); Parveen (32 years); Sundar (39 years); Sandeep (25 years); Nar Singh (41 years) and Sunder s/o Rajpal (36 years). The court noted that Bramhajit had served in the army. Apart from these, the court noted the relative family circumstances: the number of children each accused had. It then adopted a uniform rule, i.e., the period of sentence undergone by the accused, as the appropriate sentence.
- As noted earlier, all the accused were found concurrently guilty under Section 148 IPC; they were armed with different kinds of implements and weapons, that were capable of inflicting deadly injuries. The postmortem report of Subhash revealed at least six serious head injuries, including fracture and haemorrhage in different places. Pawan, Uggarsain and Sita Ram, others from the complainant party also concededly suffered injuries. Though the High Court was of the opinion that no explanation was given by the prosecution about the injuries on the accused, their nature does not seem to have been serious. At any rate, the court did not find that sufficient reason to upset the sentence under Section 149 read with Section 304 II IPC.
- The sentencing in this case, to put it mildly, is inexplicable (if not downright bizarre). On the one hand, Krishan underwent sentence for 9 years 4 months – at the other end of the spectrum, Sunder s/o Rajpal underwent only 11 months. No rationale appears from the reasoning of the High Court for this wide disparity. It is not as though the court took note of the role ascribed to the accused (such a course was not possible, given the nature of the evidence). If it were assumed that the age of the accused played a role, then Krishan, at 61 years – who served 9 years and Brahmajit, who had served in the army, and was detained for over 8 years got the stiffest sentence. On the other end of the scale, younger persons were left relatively unscathed, having served between 3 years and 11 months.
- The impugned judgment, in this court’s opinion, fell into error in not considering the gravity of the offence. Having held all the accused criminally liable, under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and also not having found any distinguishing feature in the form of separate roles played by each of them, the imposition of the “sentence undergone” criteria, amounted to an aberration, and the sentencing is for that reason, flawed. This court is, therefore, of the view that given the totality of circumstances (which includes the fact that the accused have been at large for the past four years), the appropriate sentence would be five years rigorous imprisonment. However, at the same time, the court is cognizant of the fact Krishan and Bramhajit served more than that period. Therefore, the impugned judgment, as far as they are concerned, is left undisturbed. Consequently, the sentence of Raju, Parveen, Sunder s/o Amit Lal, Sandeep, Nar Singh, and Sunder s/o Rajpal is hereby modified; they are hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. They shall surrender and serve the rest of their sentences within six weeks from today.
Party
UGGARSAIN vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1378-1379 OF 2023 – JULY 03, 2023.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/36099/36099_2019_9_1501_44752_Judgement_03-Jul-2023.pdf
