LexSAHDEV versus JAIBAR @ JAI DEV & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 722 A SAHDEV " ~- V. JAIBAR@ JAi DEV & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2009) B FEBRUARY 27, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Criminal Law: c Sentencing - HELD: It is duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and the manner in which it was committed - Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm - In the instant D case, accused mercilessly beat the victims and one of them lost his memory - High Court though upheld conviction uls .~ 307 but without assigning any reason reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years - Sentence of 10 years restored as regards the accused who caused injuries to the victim E resulting in loss of his memory - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 307 and 326 rlw s.34. The informant filed the appeal challenging the ... judgment of the High Court, which though upheld the conviction of respondents nos. 1 to 4 for offences • F punishable ulss 307 and 326, rlw s.34 IPC but reduced the custodial sentence from 10 years to 7 years. It was pleaded for the appellant that the victims were mercilessly beaten so much so that one of the victims lost his memory, and, in the circumstances, the High Court G was not right in reducing the sentence. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court ·- HELD: 1.1. The criminal law adheres in general to the H 722 SAHDEV v. JAIBAR@ JAi DEV & ORS. 723 ) principle of proportionality in prescribing liability A according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special B facts of each case. [Para 6] [727-E-H] ·•, 1.2. In order to award just and appropriate sentence for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are c to be delicately balanced by the court in a dispassionate manner. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. But undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and undermine ':. the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society D can not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. [Para 5, 6 and 8] [727-C-E; 728-D-E] E Mahesh v. State of M.P. (1987) 2 SCR 710; Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu AIR 1991 SC 1463; -" Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat 1994 (4) SCC 4 353 and State of M.P. v. Ghanshyan Singh (2003) 8 SCC 13, referred to. F Dennis Counc/e MCGDautha v. State of Cal/ifomia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711, referred to. 1.3. In the instant case, the injuries suffered by victim 'RS' were definitel} llf a very serious nature. The trial G ' -J court has imposed a sentence of 10 years in respect of offence relatable to s. 307 IPC. The High Court has not indicated any reason for reducing the sentence to 7 years. The injuries on victim 'RS' were attributed to accused 'RK'. In the circumstances of the case, so far as H 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R. A accused 'RK' is concerned, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the sentence from 7 years to 10 years in respect of offence relatable to Section 307 IPC. So far as the other two respondents-accused are concerned, though no reason has been indicated, considering the B nature of the injuries caused by them, the sentence as imposed by the High Court does not appear to be on the lower side. [Para 3, 10 and 11] [726-B-C; 729-D-F] c D Case Law Reference: (1987) 2 SCR 710 referred to para 4 AIR 1991 SC 1463 referred to para 5 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 referred to para 8 1994 (4) sec 353 referred to para 9 (2003) 8 sec 13 referred to para 9 CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2009. E From the Judgment & Order dated 4.1.06 of the High Court F of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal No. 493-SB/ 1994. Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal by the informant is to the G judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the High Court while upholding the convict
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.