LexHAZARA SINGH versus RAJ KUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 979 HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal· Nos. 603-604 of 2013) APRIL 1'8, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM,· M.Y. EQBAL AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] A B Penal code, 1860 - s. 307 - Conviction under - Trial court sentenced two accused to 5 years RI and another two accused to 3 years Rf - High Court in appeal upheld the C conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone - Held: conviction upheld - Reduction of sentence by High Court without appreciating the nature of offence, grievous injuries of witnesses/Victims, is unsustainable. D Sentence/Sentencing - Sentencing policy - It is duty of the court to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence - The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and magnitude of the E offence - Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the Justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. Respondents (the 4 accused persons) were prosecuted for attempting murder of 3 persons, including F the appellant-complaint. They were charged u/s 148, 149, 323, 324, 435, 447 and 307 IPC. The trial court convicted them. For the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC, accused 'P'and '8' were sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and accused 'K' and 'L' were sentenced to undergo RI for 3 G years. All the accused were imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default clause. The accused persons preferred criminal appeal, whereas the appellant- complainant preferred Criminal Revision for 979 H 980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R. A enhancement of sentence. High Court dismissed the revision, but partly allowed the appeal of the accused person by reducing their sentence to already undergone. Hence the present appeal 8 by one of the complainants, The question for consideration before this court was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence awarded by trial court , to already undergone. c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The maximum punishment provided u/s. 307 IPC is imprisonment for life or a term which may extend to 10 years. Although Section .307 does not expressly state the minimum sentence to be imposed, it D is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this en9rmous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The E punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict. [Para 6] [986·F·H] F 1.2. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was G planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would H do more harm to the justice system to undermine the HAZARA SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR 981 public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is duty of every A court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of B appropriate punishment. [Para 13] [990-E-G] ' Shai/esh Jasvantbhai and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 359: 2006 (1) SCR 477; Ahmed Hussein Va/i Mohammed Saiyed and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat (2009) C 7 SCC 254: 2009 (8) SCR 719; Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 532: 2009 (15) SCR 712; Guru Basavaraj@ Benne Settapa vs. State of Kamataka (2012) 8 SCC 734: 2012 (8) SCR 189; Gopa/ Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand JT 2013 (3) SC 444 - relied on. D 2. The reduction of sentence passed by the High Court without appreciating, the nature of offence, grievous injuries of witnesses/victims, is unsustainable. The High Court failed to take note of the fact that as per the medical evidence, Injury No.1 shown in supplement E MLR on the person of appellan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.