GOPAL SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 08-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 104 
GOPAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 08, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 324 -
Conviction under, of. 
accused-appellant - For firing gunshot at PW3 from a country_ 
C made pistol ('kattaJ thereby causing firearm injury to him : . .-_ 
Justification of the conviction - Held: Justified - PW1 cleariY 
stated that appellant had fired from his country made pistpl 
which hit his nephew, PW3 - Similarly, PW2, father of P~, 
vividly narrated the incident - Testimony of PW3 that wh~n 
o his uncle, PW1, was preparing accounts in his shop, he was 
/ 
suddenly hit by bullet fired by the appellant -
Medica1 
evidence made it clear that the injury was caused by fireirm, 
- PW5, the investigating officer, deposed that he ff ad 
recovered pellets of 'katta' from the wall of the shop room,,/ the 
E place of the incident - No explanation offered by the defence 
for the same - Under the circumstances, solely because the 
'katta' was not recovered, the prosecution version should not 
be disbelieved - Taking into consideration the nature of the 
injury and the weapon used, conviction of appellant u/s. 324 
F /PC was justified. 
Sentence I Sentencing - Accused-appellant fired 
gunshot at PW3 causing firearm injury to the latter- Appellant 
convicted u/s. 324 and sentenced to 3 years RI - Sentence 
challenged by defence as excessive - Held: Legislature in 
G respect of offence punishable uls.324 /PC has provided 
punishment which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with 
both - Legi$fative intent js to confer discretion on the judiciary 
in imposition of sentence in respect of such offence where it 
H 
104 
GOPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
105 
has not provided the minimum sentence or made it A 
conditional - But discretion vested required to be embedded 
in rational concepts based on sound facts - In the instant 
case, the doctor did not state the injury to be grievous but on 
'the contrary mentioned that there was no fracture and only a 
muscle injury - Weapon used (country made pistol) fits in to 
B 
the description as provided uls.324 /PC - Occurrence took 
place almost 20 years back - Parties were neighbours and 
nothing on record to show that appellant had any criminal 
antecedents - In the totality of the facts and circumstances, 
sentence of 1 year RI u/s.324 IPC would be adequate - That c 
apart, appellant directed to pay Rs. 20, 0001- to the victim 
towards compensation as envisaged u/s.357(3) CrPC - Penal 
Code, 1860 - s.324. 
Sentence I Sentencing -
Appropriate sentence -
Principle of proportionality between crime and punishment -
D 
Held: Punishment should not be disproportionately excessive 
- Concept of proportionality allows significant discretion to the 
~udge but the same has to be guided by certain principles -
There can neither be a strait-jacket formula nor a solvable 
theory in mathematical exactitude - It would depend on the 
E 
facts of the case and rationalized judicial discretion - The 
discretion should be embedded in the conceptual essence 
~ of just punishment. 
The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant 
F 
alongwith other accused persons assaulted PW1 with 
hands, fists and stones and took away money from his 
shop and also from his pocket and further fired gunshot 
at PW3 causing firearm injury to him. The trial court 
convicted the appellant under Sections 307, 324 and 380 
G 
of IPC. The High Court set aside the conviction under 
Sections 307 and 380 IPC but maintained the conviction 
under Section 324 IPC upon coming to a finding that the 
appellant had fired a gunshot at PW3 and on that count 
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 
H 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A three years. 
In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that 
the finding that he had fired a gunshot had not been 
proven beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the 'Katta' 
8 (country made pistol that was ·fired) had not been seized. 
In the alternative, the appellant contended that regard 
being had to the nature of the injury, the age of the 
appellant at the time ·of the incident, and the evidence on 
record that there was no fracture and no injury barring a 
C muscle injury, the rigorous imprisonment of three years 
imposed upon him was excessive. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. PW-1 has clearly stated that the appellant 
0 had fired from his country made pistol which had hi

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