State of Madhya Pradesh vs Udham and Others

4 days of jail term with fine of Rs.1,500/- – Same needs to be enhanced to commensurate with the guilt of the respondents – For offence u/s.326, IPC r/with s.34, IPC, the respondent nos.1-3 to serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and pay fine of Rs. 75,000/- each, within 1 month – For the offence u/s.452, IPC, they are to serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, within 1 month– On default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months – For offence u/s.326, IPC r/w s.34, IPC, the respondent no.4, aged around 80 years, to serve rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- within 1 month – For offence u/s.452, IPC, he is to serve rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and pay fine of Rs.15,000/- within 1 month – On default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month – Sentences to run concurrently – Respondents be taken into custody forthwith, to serve their remaining sentence – Penal Code, 1860 – s.326 r/w ss.34, 452.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 In the present case, it is clear that there is no detailed analysis of the facts of the case, the nature of the injuries caused, the weapons used, the number of victims, etc. given by the High Court in the impugned order. The High Court while sentencing the accused, has not taken into consideration the second charge proved against the respondents-accused herein, under Section 452 of IPC. Even the fact that the respondentsaccused had only undergone sentence of 4 days at the time of passing of the impugned order, brings into question the High Court pointing to the same as a reason for reducing their sentence. Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, anti-social or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defense, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial, disagreement by a judge in the appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list). Under the crime test, seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv) privacy breach. The injuries on some of the victims are not specifically attributed. The respondent group was numerically matched with that of the victims and there were two respondents-accused within the group carrying lathis. The bodily integrity was compromised as a result of the injury caused, but there was no evidence led to indicate any permanent embellishments of any part. The scope of intrusion of privacy due to the assault is also minimal. There was no material destruction involved in the crime. [Paras 10, 12, 13-15][982-C-D; F-H; 983-A, E-F]

1.2 The facts of the case highlighted, however, need to be balanced with the fact that this was the first offence committed by the respondents-accused and that the motive, which is stated to be trivial. Having regard to the fact that the occurrence of the crime is of the year 2008 and the respondents-accused have been, in a way, only ordered to undergo four days of jail term with a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, the same needs to be enhanced to commensurate with the guilt of the respondents-accused. For the commission of the offence under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 75,000/- each within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which they are to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence under Section 452 of IPC, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which they are to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, the respondent no. 4, who is presently aged around 80 years, is sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which he is to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence under Section

452 of IPC, respondent no. 4 is sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which he is to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month. The sentences are to run concurrently. The respondents are directed to be taken into custody forthwith, to serve out their remaining sentence, as imposed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified in the afore-stated terms. [Paras 16-20][983-G-H; 984-A-G]

Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 7 SCC 1 – relied on.

Yashwant v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2018 SC 4067 – referred to.