BED RAJ versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 28-09-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
583 
BED RAJ 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. 
[VIVIAN BosE, 
JAGANNADHADAS and B. P. SINHA JJ.] 
Sentence, 
Enhancement 
of-By the 
High Court-Principles 
applicable thereto. 
A question of sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well 
settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along ac-
cepted judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the 
detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons which 
must be disclosed on the face of the judgment. 
In a matter of enhancement there should not 
be interference 
when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. 
Interfer-
ence is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate. 
In the circumstances and bearing all the considerations of the 
present case in mind it was impossible 
to hold that the Sessions 
Judge did not impose a substantial sentence. 
The Supreme Court set aside the sentence imposed by the High 
Court and restored that of the Sessions Judge as no adequate reason 
had been assigned by the High Court for considering the sentence 
passed by the Sessions Judge as manifestly inadequate. 
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab ([1954] S.C.R. 145) and Nar 
Singh v. State pf Uttar Pradesh ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 238), referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 88 of 1954. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated the 7th January, 19~4 of · the Allahabad 
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1953 con-
nected with Crimizial Revision No. 461 of 1953 arising 
out of the Judgment and Order dated the 17th Nov-
ember, 
1952 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge 
at Meerut in Session Trial No. 113 of 1952. 
B. B. Tawakley, (K. P. Gupta, with him), for the 
appellant. 
K. B. Asthana and C. P. Lal, for the respondent. 
1955. 
September 
28. 
The 
Judgment of 
the 
Court was delivered by 
BosE J.-The 
only 
question here is about sen-
tence. 
1955 
Septemb1r 118 
1955 
Bid Raj 
v. 
Tiu State of Ullar 
Pradesh 
Bose J. 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
The appellant Bed Raj 
and another, Sri Chand 
were jointly charged with the murder of one Pheru. 
The Sessions Judge convicted 
Bed Raj under section 
304, Indian Penal Code, and 
sentenced him to three 
years' 
rigorous 
imprisonment. 
He 
'acquitted 
Sri 
Chand. 
Bed Raj appealed to the High Court and that 
Court, on admitting the appeal for hearing, issued 
notice 
to the appellant to show cause why the sen-
tence should not be enhanced. The· appeal and the 
rev1S1on were heard together. 
The appeal was 
dis-
missed 
and the High Court enhanced 
the sentence to 
ten years. 
Now, though no limitation has been placed on the 
High Court's power to enhance it is 
nevertheless a 
judicial act and, like all judicial acts involving an 
exercise 
of discretion, must be exercised along well 
known ju_dicial lines. 
The only question before us is 
wheth"r those lines have been observed in the present 
case. 
The facts 
that have been found by the Sessions 
Judge and accepted by the High Court are to be found 
in the opening paragraph 
of 
the 
lear.ned 
Sessions 
Judge's judgment. 
They are as follows : 
"Roop Chand, the son of Bed Raj accused, was 
removing the dung of the bullocks of Pheru deceased 
from an open space near his cattle shed. 
Pheru pro-
tested to the boy and turned down the basket in 
which the boy had put the dung. The two 
accused 
who are brothers then came to the scene from their 
own cattle 
shed which was near by and there was an 
exchange of abuses between them and Pheru. 
The 
accused Sri Chand then caught hold of Pheru by the 
waist and Bed Raj 
accused took out a knife and 
stabbed him in 3 or 4 places. The knife was then left 
sticking in the neck of the deceased and the accused 
ran away". 
The assault occurred about 8 o'clock on the morn-
ing of the 23rd February 1952. Pheru was removed 
to the hospital and the Medical Officer Dr. Fa.teh 
Singh examined him and found that he was suffering 
from shock. 
He found three injuries on his person : 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
585 
all "simple". 
He· gave the following description of 
them: 
" ( 1) 
Incised 
and punctured 
wound f'Xf'X(' 
neck, right side lower part. 
(2) Incised wound 
1 X "l" X ! " right deltoid regior. 
frontal and lower part above downward. 
(3) 
Incised wound f'X 1/s" <¥' Epigastric region". 
He said-
"Whcn Pheru was 
admitted in the hospital he 
was under shock but his condition was _not dangerous 
.... 

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