State of M.P. v. Udaibhan
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. These appeals by special leave
have been preferred by State of Madhya Pradesh against common
judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.92/
2002 and 106/2002.
2. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has partly
allowed criminal appeals preferred by the three accused, namely,
Rajaram, Udaibhan and Hakim Singh, respondents in these appeals so
as to convert their conviction under Section 307 of!PC for Rajaram and
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the·other two
appellants into one under Section 326 for Rajaram and 326/34 for the
other two. The High Court did not interfere with the fine imposed on the
respondents for the offence noted above as well as for the offence
under Section 323 IPC but reduced the sentence for imprisonment which
was R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 as
well as Section 307 read with Section 34 of the !PC to a period already
undergone by the respondents which was of one year and nine months
only.
3. Since the High Court did not disbelieve the substratum of the
prosecution case and has maintained the conviction of respondents, albeit
1081
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
for an offence minor to one under Section 307 or Section 307 read with
Section 34 of IPC, the only material issue worth consideration in these
appeals is whether the High Court in the matter of awarding of
punishment has ignored the relevant considerations and adopted an
erroneous approach. The High Court accepted the contention advanced
on behalf of the accused that the evidence on record did not establish
any intention on the part of the accused persons to kill the complainant
or his brother, the two injured in this case. The High Court did not doubt
nor did the accused persons raise any contention.that the injury sustained
by the complainant on head was not a grievous injury. Being an incised
wound on temporal region of the head, it was clearly caused by a sharp
cutting weapon and dangerous to I ife. The doctor held the aforesaid
injury no. I on the head to be grievous on the basis of X-ray which showed
fracture of the skull bone.
4. The High Court in our considered opinion failed to keep under
focus various relevant factors for a.proper decision on the quantum of
sentence which should have been imposed even for the altered conviction
under Section 326 or Section 326/34 of the !PC. The prosecution case
which has been accepted as true disclosed that the complainant Kriparam
was called to Panchayat Bhawan where the accused persons were
already present with weapons. Rajaram was having farsa whereas
Hakim was armed with an iron rod and Udaibhan with lathi. As soon as
the complainant arrived he was threatened and assaulted by all the three
with their respective weapons. Rajaram caused a farsa injury on the
head, Hakim caused an injury with iron bar on the eyebrow near the
right eye. Udaibhan gave more than one lathi blows. When complainant's
brother Prabhu came for his rescue then he was also assaulted with
lathi blows by Udaibhan.
5. The High Court did not even note down the six injuries on the
complainant which included a grievous injury on the temporal part, a
reddish blue mark on the upper side of right eye, another injury having
blue mark on the forehead and another wound on the eyebrow on the
G right eye. There was hardly any mitigating circumstance to take such a
lenient view as has been done by the High Court. The law on the
principles governing proper sentencing has been elaborated by this Court
in large number of cases. It is the duty of the Court awarding sentence
to ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency in
STATE OF M.P. v. UDAIBHAN [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]
awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the
necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not re
assure the society that the offender has been properly dealt with. It is
not a very healthy situation to leave the injured and complainant side
thoroughly dissatisfied with a very lenient punishment to the accused.
In the present case the order of punishment imposed by the High Court
suffers from the vice of being over-lenient even in absence of any
mitigating circumstance.
6. In such a situation, the interest of justice requires interference
with the punishment imposed by the High Court. The ends of justice
would be satisfied by imposing on all the three accused persons a sentence
of rigorous imprisonment for three years in place of period already
undergone, for the offence under Section 326 as well as Section 326/34
of the !PC. The other sentence which has been maintained by the High
Court is left intact. However, it is clarified that sentence of imprisonment
for different offences against the respondents shall run concurrently.
The impugned judgment and order are modified accordingly. The Trial
Court shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the respondents are
taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder period of
imprisonment in connection with Sessions Case No. 16/2001, tried by
Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh). The appeals
preferred by the State are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals partly allowed .
... -
1083