LexRAJ BALA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- [2015] 9 S.C.R. 113 RAJ BALA v. STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. ETC. ETC. (Criminal Appeal Nos.1049-1050 OF 2015 etc.) AUGUST 18, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] A B Sentence/Sentencing - Principle of proportionality between crime and punishment-Prosecution uls.306 /PC- c Trial court found the accused guilty of offence u/s.306 and sentenced them for 3 years RI with a fine of Rs. 3, 0001- with default clause - High Court, in the appeal of the accused, confirmed their conviction, but reduced 10..eir sentence to the period already undergone (4 months 20 days) - Appeal D challenging the reduction of sentence - Held: A court while imposing sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of the society and has to exercise its discretion to impose punishment on reasonable and rational parameters in accordance with the concept of rule of law- The punishment E for the offence uls. 306 /PC is 10 years- Once the offence is proved, there should have been adequate and appropriate punishment - The sentence imposed by trial court as well as the High Court are inadequate - The sentence imposed by trial court cannot be changed in absence of any appeal F thereagainst - The sentence imposed by High Court is set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 306. Allowing the appeal, whereby the order of High Court redu(!ing the sentence of the accused was G challenged, the Court HELD: 1. A Court, while imposing sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of the society. The legislature in its wisdom has conferred discretion on the H 113 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A Court but the duty of the court in such a situation becomes more difficult and complex. It has to exercise the discretion on reasonable and rational parameters. The discretion cannot be allowed to yield to fancy ·or notion. A Judge has to keep in mind the paramount B concept of rule of law and the conscience of the collective and balance it with the principle of proportionality, but when the discretion is exercised in .a capricious manner, i~ tantamounts to relinquishment of duty and reckless abandonment of responsibility. One C cannot remain a total alien to the demand of the socio- cultural milieu, regard being had to the command of law and also brush aside the agony of the victim or the survivors of the victim, Society waits with patience to 0 see that justice is done. There is a hope on the part of the society and when the criminal culpability is established and the discretion is irrationally exercised by the court, the said hope is shattered and the patience is wrecked. It is the duty of the court not to exercise the E discretion in such a manner as a consequence of which the expectation inherent in patience, which is the "finest part of fortitude" is destroyed. A Judge should never feel thatthe individuals who constitute the society as a whole · is imperceptible to the exercise of discretion. He should F always bear in mind that erroneous and fallacious exercise of discretion is perceived by a visible collective. [Para 11) [124-D-H; 125-A-B] Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand (2013) 7 SCC 545; G Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat 2006 (1) SCR 477: (2006) 2 SCC 359; State of M.P V: Babu Lal (2014) 9 SC~ 281; State of M.P v. Surendra Singh (2015) 1 SCC 222; State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh 2015 (1) SCR 709: (2015) 3 sec 441 - relied on. H 2. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide .. RAJ BALA v. STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. 115 and further stipulates that whoever abets in the crime A would be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Once the offence under Section 306 IPC is proved, there should have been adequate and appropriate punishment. [Para 11] [123- B F; 124-B] 3. The trial Judge, while imposing punishment, has applied the test that the accused persons are first offenders and belong to weaker section of the society. C Another mitigating· fact that has been recorded is that daughter of one of the accused was teased. The trial Judge has, on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence on record, came to· the conclusion that the deceased was assaulted and being apprehensive of D further torture, he committed suicide. The mitigating factors which have been highlighted by the trial Judge are absolutely non-mitigating factors and, in a way, totally inconsequential for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.