Sentence / Sentencing – Quantum of punishment – Appellant convicted by trial court u/s.304(II) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years – Conviction and sentence confirmed by High Court – Issue before Supreme Court limited to quantum of punishment – Held: With regard to quantum of sentence, it all depends on background facts of the case, antecedents of the accused, whether the assault was pre-meditated and pre-planned or not, etc. – In the present case, there was a dispute with regard to pathway, which the complainant’s family members were claiming from the land of the accused – The incident occurred in front of the house of the accused and when the female family members of the accused were assaulted, the appellant in retaliation seems to have assaulted the family members of the complainant – Trial Court itself recorded that the de facto complainant’s family members were the aggressors and they tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the accused from their land – The same was not questioned either by the State or by the complainant – It was also clearly held by the Trial Court that it was not a premeditated or pre-planned incident and happened during a sudden quarrel – Findings recorded by Trial Court have become final – Fit case to modify the sentence, to meet the ends of justice – Sentence imposed on appellant modified to two years’ rigorous imprisonment – IPC – s.304(II).
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. With regard to quantum of sentence, it all depends on background facts of the case, antecedents of the accused, whether the assault was premeditated and pre-planned or not, etc. In this case on hand, it is clear from the evidence on record that there was a dispute with regard to pathway, which the complainant’s family members were claiming from the land of the accused. In view of such interference, it appears that the accused filed a Suit and obtained injunction orders from Civil Court and in spite of the same, for violation of Court orders, the family members of the complainant were put behind bars for 30 days. The same is evident from the deposition of PW-1. The incident occurred in front of the house of the accused and when the female family members of the accused were assaulted, the appellant in retaliation seems to have assaulted the family members of the complainant. Trial Court itself has recorded that the de facto complainant’s family members are the aggressors and they have tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the accused from their land. The said findings recorded by the Trial Court, became final. The same was not questioned either by the State or by the complainant. It is also clearly held by the Trial Court that it was not a premeditated or pre-planned incident. It happened in a sudden quarrel on the day of occurrence. [Para 11][519-G-H; 520-A-D]
2. Having regard to such findings recorded by the Trial Court itself, which have become final and further, in view of the judgments relied on by the appellant, which support the case of the appellant for modifying the sentence, this is a fit case to modify the sentence, to meet the ends of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, while confirming the conviction for offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC, the sentence is modified to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. [Paras 12, 13][520-D-F]
Lakshmi Chand and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 9 SCC 704; Madhavan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2017) 15 SCC 582 and Ram Pyare Mishra v. Prem Shanker and Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 614 : [2008]
12 SCR 497 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.