Sentencing – Principle of Proportionality – Case of the prosecution that the accused-respondent assaulted his father who later succumbed to the injury – Trial Court found the respondent guilty u/s.304 Part II, IPC and awarded him 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment while setting off the period of detention already undergone (3 months, 21 days) against the term of imprisonment imposed on him – High Court though upheld the conviction of the respondent but modified the sentence of 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment to that of the period already undergone i.e. 3 months and 21 days – On appeal, held: When an accused is convicted for the offence u/Part II of s.304, he could be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to a period of 10 years, or with fine, or both – In this case, the Trial Court chose to award 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment to the respondent – Punishment so awarded by the Trial Court was itself leaning towards leniency, essentially in view of the fact that the respondent was 26 years of age at the time of the incident in question – However, the High Court further reduced the punishment to the period already undergone – Further indulgence by the High Court, over and above the leniency already shown by the Trial Court was totally uncalled for – High Court omitted to consider the requirement of balancing the mitigating and aggravating factors while dealing with the question of awarding adequate punishment – Punishment to be awarded in a case has to be commensurate with the gravity of crime as also with the relevant facts and attending circumstances – Offending act in question had been of respondent assaulting his father and then the attempt to cover up the crime by taking his father to hospital and suggesting as if the victim sustained injury because of fall from the roof – Acts and deeds of the respondent had been of killing his own father and then, of furnishing false information – In such a case, there was no further scope for leniency on the question of punishment than what was already shown by the Trial Court – High Court not justified in reducing the sentence to an abysmally inadequate period of less than 4 months – Judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the Trial Court restored – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.201, 304 Part II, 302.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court interfered with and reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court on rather irrelevant considerations, while ignoring the relevant factors and the governing principles for the award of punishment and hence, the order impugned cannot be sustained. With the evidence on record, it was clearly established that the respondent was author of the fatal injury in question. [Para 10-11][843-B-D]
1.2 Awarding of just and adequate punishment to the wrong doer in case of proven crime remains a part of duty of the Court. The punishment to be awarded in a case has to be commensurate with the gravity of crime as also with the relevant facts and attending circumstances. The task is of striking a delicate balance between the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. No strait jacket formula for sentencing is available but the requirement of taking a holistic view of the matter cannot be forgotten. In the process of sentencing, any one factor, whether of extenuating circumstance or aggravating, cannot, by itself, be decisive of the matter. [Paras 14, 15][847-E-H]
1.3 When an accused is convicted for the offence under Part II of Section 304, he could be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to a period of 10 years, or with fine, or both. In this case, the Trial Court chose to award the punishment of 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment to the respondent. The punishment so awarded by the Trial Court had itself been leaning towards leniency, essentially in view of the fact that the respondent was 26 years of age at the time of the incident in question. However, the High Court further proceeded to reduce the punishment to the period already undergone (i.e., 3 months and 21 days) on consideration of the factors: (i) that the incident had taken place at spur of the moment; (ii) that the respondent was 26 years of age at the time of incident; and (iii) that the respondent himself took his father to hospital. On these considerations and after finding that the respondent had spent 3 months and 21 days in custody, the High Court concluded that “no useful purpose would be served in sending appellant back to jail”. Further indulgence by the High Court, over and above the leniency already shown by the Trial Court, was totally uncalled for. So far the mitigating factors, as taken into consideration by the High Court are concerned, the same had already gone into consideration when the Trial Court awarded a comparatively lesser punishment of 3 years’ imprisonment for the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both. In fact, the factor that the incident had happened at the ‘spur of moment’ had been the basic reason for the respondent having been convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC though he was charged for the offence of murder under Section
302 IPC. This factor could not have resulted in awarding just a symbolic punishment. Then, the factor that the respondent was
26 years of age had been the basic reason for awarding comparatively lower punishment of 3 years’ imprisonment. This factor has no further impelling characteristics which would justify yet further reduction of the punishment than that awarded by the Trial Court. Moreover, the third factor, of the respondent himself taking his father to hospital, carries with it the elements of pretence as also deception on the part of the respondent, particularly when he falsely stated that the victim sustained injury due to the fall.[Paras 17, 18][848-F-H; 849-A-E]
1.4 The High Court also appears to have omitted to consider the requirement of balancing the mitigating and aggravating factors while dealing with the question of awarding just and adequate punishment. The facts and the surrounding factors of this case make it clear that, the offending act in question had been of respondent assaulting his father with a blunt object which resulted in the fracture of skull of the victim at parietal region. Then, the respondent attempted to cover up the crime by taking his father to hospital and suggesting as if the victim sustained injury because of fall from the roof. Thus, the acts and deeds of the respondent had been of killing his own father and then, of furnishing false information. The homicidal act of the respondent had, in fact, been of patricide; killing of one’s own father. In such a case, there was no further scope for leniency on the question of punishment than what had already been shown by the Trial Court; and the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence to an abysmally inadequate period of less than 4 months. The observations of the High Court that no useful purpose would be served by detention of the accused cannot be approved in this case for the reason that the objects of deterrence as also protection of society are not lost with mere passage of time. [Para 19] [849-F-H; 850-A-B]
Jinnat Mia v. State of Assam (1998) 9 SCC 319 – held inapplicable.
State of M.P. v. Ganshyam (2003) 8 SCC 13 : [2003]
3 Suppl. SCR 618 ; Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 : [2012] 1 SCR
145 – relied on.
Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1953 SC
131 : [1953] SCR 546 ; State of Karnataka v.
Krishnappa (2004) 4 SCC 75 ; Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82 : [2000] 3 SCR 1000 ; State of M.P. v. Saleem (2005) 5 SCC 554 : [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 562 ; Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 2 SCC 175:[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 195 – 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.