LexJASBIR SINGH versus TARASINGHAND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 O S.C.R. 61 · JASBIR SINGH v. TARASINGHAND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 1241 of 2015) SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ARLIN MISHRA, JJ.] A B Sentence/Sentencing:.Appea/ by complainant against the alleged lenient view taken by High Court with regard to c the sentence - Conviction of respondents ulss. 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-8, /PC for committing forgery of documents- Sentence imposed upon respondents-accused ranging from 1 to 3 years - Challenge to the quantum of sentence - Respondents underwent 4-5 months in custody- High Court D reduced sentence to period already undergone - Complainant's appeal - Held: Unless there are mitigating circumstances, the appellate/revisional court will not be justified in arbitrarily reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court - When the appellatelrevisional court reduces the E sentence, the factors leading to such reduction should be reflected in the order- Punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed - In view thereof, impugned order is set aside and matter remitted to High Court. F Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD: The prescribed maximum punishment for G offence under Section 466 of IPC is seven years and fine; under Section 467 of IPC, it is imprisonment for life or . imprisonment for ten years and fine; under Section 468 of IPC, it is seven years and fine and under Section 471 of IPC, it is two years or with fine or both. The gravity of H 61 62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10S.C.R. A the offence, the mitigating factors and circumstances like parties buying peace, parties settling the disputes and getting reconciled, victim subsequently becoming part of the family, victim showing interest in getting monetarily compensated, etc., the motive for commission of the B crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed are factors that help the court to discern and decipher the appropriate purpose of punishment and to enter a satisfaction that justice has been done. Unless there are mitigating circumstances which were omitted to be noted C by the trial court, the appellate/revisional court will not be justified in arbitrarily reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court. And in any case, when the appellate/ revisional court reduces the sentence, the factors leading 0 to such reduction should be reflected in the order. [Paras 9 and 10] [65-C, E-H] E Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 532: 2009 (15) SCR 712 - relied on. Case Law Reference 2009 (15) SCR 712 relied on. Para 11 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal F Appeal No. 1241 of2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2013 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1072 of 2013. G Gagan Gupta for the Appellant. H Jayant K. Sud, Addi. AG, Jasleen Chahal, Asst. A.G., Ajay P. Tushir, K. K. Mohan, Kuldip Singh, forthe Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASBIR SINGH v. fARASINGHAND OTHERS 63 KURIAN, J.: 1. Leave granted. A 2 The de facto complainant has come up in appeal aggrieved by the alleged lenient view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment with regard to the sentence. 3. The party-respondents were tried under Sections 466, B 467, 468, 471, 1208 of the Indian Penal Code (45of1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') for having committed a serious offence of forgery of documents in order to grab the property of one Harbans Singh. The trial court imposed the following sentence: C "Name of Section R.I. Fine (Rs.) In Default Accused Partapa Tara Singh 4661PC 466/120-B 467 IPC 468 IPC 471 IPC Bhajan Singh 467 IPC 468 IPC Charan Dass 467 IPC 468 IPC Dalbir Singh 467 IPC 468 IPC 2 years 500/- One month 1 year 500/- One month 3 years 1000/- Two months 3 years 1000/- Two months D 2 years 500/- One months E 3 years 1000/- Two months 3 years 1000/- Two months 3 years 1000/- Two months 3 years 1000/- Two months 3 years 1000/- Two months 3 years 1 OOOi- Two months" F 4. The appeal by the party-respondents was dismissed. G In Revision, it appears the challenge was limited only to the quantum of sentence. As a matter of fact, notice issued by this Court is limited to the question of quantum of sentence only. The party-respondents mainly contended on prolonged trial . and their advanced age. To quote the relevant submissions:
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.