LexJAMEEL versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 712 JAMEEL v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 2040 of 2009) NOVEMBER 06, 2009 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.308 and s.320, seventh clause - Attempt to commit culpable homicide - Pissault with 'lathi' in view of past enmity- Victim hit on the head - Bone of his head c fractured - Accused-appellant convicted u/s.308 and sentenced to two years' r:igorous imprisonment - Quantum of sentence - Challenged by appellant - Held: Injury sustained by victim was in the nature of grievous ,hurt (in terms of s.320, · seventh clause) - Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous 0 hurt can extend upto imprisonment for seven years - No valid ground for reduction of sentence in facts and circumstances of the case - Sentence/Sentencing - Proper and appropriate sentence- Considerations for determining sentence - Discussed. According to the prosecution, in view of past enmity, E appellant alongwith another accused inflicted injury on the head of PW3 by assaulting him with 'lathi'. The trial court convicted both the accused under Section 308 IPC with two years rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the t:tigh Court confirmed the conviction and sentence in respect F of the appellant but acquitted the other accused. Before this Court, the appellant contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the only offence made out was under Section 323 IPC arid since the appellant had already undergone nearly eight months in custo~)', the G conviction and sentence awarded by trial Court and confirmed by the High Court ought to be modified accordingly, and he ought to be acquitted. On the other hand, the State by pointing out the injury, medical report and ingredients of Sections 320, 324 and H 712 JAMEEL v. STATE OF U.P. 713 325 IPC submitted that since head injury by use of '/athi' is A ' a grievous injury in terms of clause 7 of Section 320 IPC, ( -~ there was no ground for interference and reduction of sentence was not warranted. -In appeal to this Court, the question that arose for consideration was whether the prosecution had B established its case and the quantum of sentence, namely, two years' rigorous imprisonment, as awarded by the Courts below was reasonable and acceptable. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The general policy which the courts have c followed with regard to sentencing is that the punishment must be appropri.ate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that D Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. [Para _. 1 O] [719-0-E] 1.2. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be E 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 the accused, the nature of F weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. [Para 11] ,[719-F-G] 1.3. It is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence G and the manner in which it is executed or committed. The sentencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant tacts and circumstances having bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. [Para 12] [719-G-H; 720-A] H 714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana JT 2009 (11) SC 122, relied on. .;. _._ 2.1. In the present case, as far as complicity of the appellant is concerned, the prosecution has established its case beyond doubt that he hit on the head of PW3 with B a lathi and injured him. It has been established and proved from the statement of the injured PW-3 and his wife PW-2. It is also clear from the evidence of PW-2 that she had accompanied her husband-PW-3 and father-in-law (PW1) to the Police Station. [Para 13] [720-A-B] c 2.2. From the medical report and the supplementary medical report, it
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.