JASWINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE versus NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 725 · Decided: 19-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
725
JASWINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE
v.
NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU & ORS.
(Review Petition (Crl.) No. 477 of 2018)
MAY 19, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing:
Enhancement of sentence – Incident pertaining to a dispute
of right of way – Respondent No. 1-accused inflicted fist blows to a
65 years old man, resulting in his death – High Court convicted the
accused u/s. 304 Part II IPC – However, in appeal, the Supreme
Court held that out of all the fist blows of the respondent, only one
of them landed on the head of the deceased, that there was
uncertainty regarding the cause of death, that no weapon used nor
there was past enmity, thus, respondent not held guilty of death but
of causing voluntary hurt to the deceased, punishable u/s. 323 IPC
and was sentenced with a fine of Rs. 1000/- only – Review petition
– Held: Accused, 25 year old international cricketer was extremely
physically fit and his hand can also be a weapon itself – He assaulted
a man more than twice his age and inflicted even with his bare
hands, a severe blow on victim’s head – Unintended consequence
of harm would still be properly attributable to him as it was
reasonably foreseeable – Even though the harm might not be directly
intended, some aggravated culpability must be attached if the person
suffers a grievous hurt or dies – While sentencing the principle of
proportionality should be kept in mind – Disproportionately light
punishment humiliates and frustrate a victim of crime, and  erodes
the faith of the society in the criminal justice system – Long period
having lapsed by the time the appeal was decided cannot be a ground
to award   disproportionate and inadequate punishment – Thus,
imposition of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of
one year – Review – Criminal jurisprudence.
Adequate sentence – Imposition of – Principles of
proportionality – Held: There is necessity of maintaining a
reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 725
725
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
punishment – While disproportionately severe sentence ought not
to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe the courts to
award an inadequate sentence, having due regard to the nature of
the offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a
deterrent effect on the society at large.
Partly allowing the Review Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is disinclination to enlarge the notice to
something more than the aspect of sentencing. The evidence
has been analysed in detail to come to a conclusion as to what is
the nature of injury. It has been taken into account that only one
blow with bare hands as inflicted by respondent No.1 had landed
on the head of the deceased. The finding is that apparently in the
fist fight, other blows may have been attempted but did not fall
on the material part of the body. Aspects such as lack of post
enmity, lack of any weapon used except bare hands and the result
of a spontaneous fight over a right of way were also taken into
account. Thus, the argument for expanding the scope of the review
application is rejected. [Paras 17-18][735-D-F]
1.2 Some material aspects which were required to be taken
note of appear to have been somehow missed out at the stage of
sentencing, such as the physical fitness of respondent No.1 as he
was an international cricketer, who was tall and well-built and
aware of the force of a blow that even his hand would carry. The
blow was not inflicted on a person identically physically placed
but a 65 years old person, more than double his age. Respondent
No.1 cannot say that he did not know the effect of the blow or
plead ignorance on this aspect. It is not as if someone has to
remind him of the extent of the injury which could be caused by a
blow inflicted by him. In the given circumstances, tempers may
have been lost but then the consequences of the loss of temper
must be borne. In fact, this Court to some extent had been
indulgent in ultimately holding respondent No.1 guilty of an
offence of simple hurt under Section 323 IPC. The question is
whether even on sentence, mere passage of time can result in a
fine of Rs.1,000/- being an adequate sentence where a person
has lost his life by reason of the severity of blow inflicted by
respondent No.1 with his hands. The hand can also be a weapon
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
727
by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an
extremely p

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