ADU RAM versus MUKNA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 08-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ADU RAM 
v. 
MUKNA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 8, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYA T AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 304 Part-// r/w Sections 148, 149 and 
341-Murder-Prosecution-Multiple injuries on deceased- But not on vital 
parts-Conviction for offence punishable u/s 301 by trial Court-High Court 
C altered the conviction to section 304 Part I and reduced the custodial sentence 
to period already undergone-On appeal, held: Conviction liable to be altered 
to Section 304 Part /I-Hence in view of facts of the case custodial sentence 
of six years would serve the ends of justice. 
D 
Sentencing-Principles for-Held: For sente!2cing principle -of 
proportionality should be adhered to-Law should adopt the corrective 
machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix-Imposition of sentence 
without considering its effect on the social order may be in reality a futile 
exercise. 
E 
There was altercation between informant and deceased on one side 
and the accused persons on the other side. Accused surrounded the 
deceased and started beating him with lathis and axes resulting in his 
instantaneous death. As per medical evidence there were multiple fracture 
injuries on the body of the deceased but they were not on vital parts of 
the body. Injuries on vital parts were simple in nature. Trial Court in view 
F of the evidence of witnesses and in view of the multiple injuries, convicted 
the accused u/s 302 r/w Sections 149, 148 and 341 IPC. High Court altered 
the conviction u/s 304 Part I r/w Sections 149, 148 and 341 IPC on the 
ground that injuries were not on vital parts and those on vital parts were 
simple in nature. Custodial sentence was reduced to period already 
G undergone. Hence these two appeals by informant and the State. 
Disposing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. High Court has recorded adequate reasons for altering 
conviction. The number of injuries is always not determinative of the 
H 
314 
ADU RAM v. MUKNA 
315 
offence. It would depend on the weapon used, place where the injuries were A 
inflicted and the nature of the injuries. Further, the assaults appear t9 
have been made in the course of quarrel. That being so, no serious 
infirmity is noticed in the High Court's view regarding the conviction. lfi 
fact, this is a case which falls under Section 304 Part II IPC. r3t9-A-B) 
2.l. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the B 
corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft 
modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered 
with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in 
each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned 
and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of C 
the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending 
circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of 
consideration. [319-D-F) 
Mahesh v. State of MP., (1987) 2 SCR 710, referred to. 
2.2. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more 
harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the 
efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious 
threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court to award proper sentence 
having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was 
D 
executed or committed etc. (320-A-B) 
E 
Sevaka Peruma/ etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (1991) SC 1463, relied 
on. 
2.3. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of 
proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each F 
kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion 
to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit 
sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are 
raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that 
punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are G 
determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the 
correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. 
Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and 
sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these 
considerations cause a departure from .just desert as the basis of 
punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and H 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A widespread. But in fact, quite apart from those co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.