Sentence/Sentencing:
Enhancement of sentence – Incident pertaining to a dispute of right of way – Respondent No. 1-accused inflicted fist blows to a
65 years old man, resulting in his death – High Court convicted the accused u/s. 304 Part II IPC – However, in appeal, the Supreme Court held that out of all the fist blows of the respondent, only one of them landed on the head of the deceased, that there was uncertainty regarding the cause of death, that no weapon used nor there was past enmity, thus, respondent not held guilty of death but of causing voluntary hurt to the deceased, punishable u/s. 323 IPC and was sentenced with a fine of Rs. 1000/- only – Review petition – Held: Accused, 25 year old international cricketer was extremely physically fit and his hand can also be a weapon itself – He assaulted a man more than twice his age and inflicted even with his bare hands, a severe blow on victim’s head – Unintended consequence of harm would still be properly attributable to him as it was reasonably foreseeable – Even though the harm might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must be attached if the person suffers a grievous hurt or dies – While sentencing the principle of proportionality should be kept in mind – Disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrate a victim of crime, and erodes the faith of the society in the criminal justice system – Long period having lapsed by the time the appeal was decided cannot be a ground to award disproportionate and inadequate punishment – Thus, imposition of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year – Review – Criminal jurisprudence.
Adequate sentence – Imposition of – Principles of proportionality – Held: There is necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and punishment – While disproportionately severe sentence ought not to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe the courts to award an inadequate sentence, having due regard to the nature of the offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on the society at large.
Partly allowing the Review Petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is disinclination to enlarge the notice to something more than the aspect of sentencing. The evidence has been analysed in detail to come to a conclusion as to what is the nature of injury. It has been taken into account that only one blow with bare hands as inflicted by respondent No.1 had landed on the head of the deceased. The finding is that apparently in the fist fight, other blows may have been attempted but did not fall on the material part of the body. Aspects such as lack of post enmity, lack of any weapon used except bare hands and the result of a spontaneous fight over a right of way were also taken into account. Thus, the argument for expanding the scope of the review application is rejected. [Paras 17-18][735-D-F]
1.2 Some material aspects which were required to be taken note of appear to have been somehow missed out at the stage of sentencing, such as the physical fitness of respondent No.1 as he was an international cricketer, who was tall and well-built and aware of the force of a blow that even his hand would carry. The blow was not inflicted on a person identically physically placed but a 65 years old person, more than double his age. Respondent No.1 cannot say that he did not know the effect of the blow or plead ignorance on this aspect. It is not as if someone has to remind him of the extent of the injury which could be caused by a blow inflicted by him. In the given circumstances, tempers may have been lost but then the consequences of the loss of temper must be borne. In fact, this Court to some extent had been indulgent in ultimately holding respondent No.1 guilty of an offence of simple hurt under Section 323 IPC. The question is whether even on sentence, mere passage of time can result in a fine of Rs.1,000/- being an adequate sentence where a person has lost his life by reason of the severity of blow inflicted by respondent No.1 with his hands. The hand can also be a weapon by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicts the same. This may be understood where a blow may be given either by a physically fit person or to a more aged person. Insofar as the injury caused is concerned, this Court has accepted the plea of a single blow by hand being given on the head of the deceased. It is this significance which is an error apparent on the face of the record needing some remedial action. [Para 24][737-C-G]
1.3 While a disproportionately severe sentence ought not to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe the law courts to award a sentence which would be manifestly inadequate, having due regard to the nature of the offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on the society at large. Punishments are awarded not because of the fact that it has to be an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather having its due impact on the society; while undue harshness is not required but inadequate punishment may lead to sufferance of the community at large. [Para 25][737-G-H; 738-A-B]
1.4 Any undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. The society can not long endure under serious threats and if the courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance and, therefore, 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. Thus, 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 perpetrated. [Para 26][738-C-D]
1.5 The sentencing philosophy for an offence has a social goal that the sentence has to be based on the principle that the accused must realise that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in his life but also a concavity in the social fabric. While opportunity to reform has to be kept in mind, the principle of proportionality also has to be equally kept in mind. [Para 28][738-F]
1.6 When a 25 years old man, who was an international cricketer, assaults a man more than twice his age and inflicts, even with his bare hands, a severe blow on his victim’s head, the unintended consequence of harm would still be properly attributable to him as it was reasonably foreseeable. That it would cause the death of a person is another matter since the conviction is only under Section 323 IPC. In that context it has been observed that even though any harm might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must be attached if the person suffers a grievous hurt or dies as a result thereof. The Court was not greatly influenced by the fact that 26 years had passed since the incident and observed that because a long period had lapsed by the time the appeal was decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which was disproportionate and inadequate. [Para 32][740-G-H; 741-A-B]
1.7 A disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates a victim of crime when the offender goes unpunished or is let off with a relatively minor punishment as the system pays no attention to the injured’s feelings. Indifference to the rights of the victim of crime is fast eroding the faith of the society in general and the victim of crime in particular in the criminal justice system. [Para 35][741-E-F]
1.8 This Court is not setting forth much about how the investigation proceeded initially, how the court had to intervene to see that the relevant people are charged, the manner of leading of evidence, the hesitancy of doctors all of which weighed in this Court opining that a case beyond reasonable doubt could be only of one under Section 323 of the IPC. It is believed that the indulgence was not required to be shown at the stage of sentence by only imposing a sentence of fine and letting the respondent go without any imposition of sentence. The instant case is not one where two views are possible such that review should not be exercised. It is a case where some germane facts for sentencing appear to have been lost sight of while imposing only a fine on respondent No.1 and, therefore, no question of choosing between two possible views arises. Thus, in addition to the fine imposed it is considered appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment to be undergone by respondent No.1. [Para 38-40][742-D-F]
Richpal Singh Meena v. Ghasi (2014) 8 SCC 918 : [2014] 9 SCR 857; Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [1958] SCR 1495; Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State (2014) 4 SCC
375 : [2013] 9 SCR 1000; Parvinder Kansal v. State of NCT 2020 SCC Online SC 685; Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 752 : [2018]
13 SCR 1; Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2015)
3 SCC 449; Jai Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 5 SCC 1 : [1999] 3 SCR 426; Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh (2014) 7 SCC 323 : [2014] 5 SCR 882; Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 2 SCC 175 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 195; State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75 : [2000] 2 SCR 761; Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 77 : [2013] 8 SCR 951; Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516 : [2012] 3 SCR 496; Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC 545 : [2013] 4 SCR 104; Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3802 : [2012] 1 SCR 145; Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 453; State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal & Anr. Decided on 8.4.2022; Soman v. State of Kerala (2013) 11 SCC 382 : [2012] 11 SCR 1155 – referred to.
Payne v. Tennessee 501 US 808 (1991); Booth v. Maryland 482 U.S. 496 (1987); Snyder v. Massachusetts
291 US 97 (1934) – referred to.
Shri P. Babulu Reddy Foundation Lecture, Victims of Crime – The Unseen Side by Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, Judge, Supreme Court of India (as he then was) (1998)
1 SCC (Jour) 3. Delivered at Hyderabad on 28th September 1997 – 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.