SHAM SUNDER versus PURAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 21-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHAM SUNDER 
v. 
PURAN AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 1990 
B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
c 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 304 Part-I-Conviction 
-Life imprisonmenr-Second appeal-Converted to one under section 
304 Part I and sentence reduced-No particular reasons given-Validity 
of the conviction-Sentence-Whether adequate. 
Sentence: Awarding punishment-Relevant factors to be taken 
into account-Measure of punishmenr to be proportionate to gravity of 
offence. 
1 
Respondent I is the son of Respondent No. 2. Including Respon-
D 
dent No. 1 Respondent No. 2 had 4 sons. Respondent No. 2 owned a 
sugarcane field adjoining the wheat field of one P. One of the sons of 
Respondent-2 had burnt sugarcane patties causing damage to the wheat 
crop of P, against which P protested before the respondents. The pro-
test was turned down. Shortly thereafter the respondent and the family 
members reached the house of P. They were all armed. Respondents 
E 
attacked P and he fell down. On the way to hospital P died. Most of the 
accused as well as the family members of P S'ustained injuries. On a 
complaint, F.I.R. was registered. After investigation, Prosecution filed 
a case before the Additional Sessions Judge. Two eye-witnesses were 
produced by the prosecution. They were relatives of the deceased and 
there was no independent witness. 
F 
The Additional District Judge convicted the respondent for 
offences nnder sections 302 IPC and 323, 325 read with 149 IPC. Both were 
sentenced to imprisonment for lif.e ~nd a fine Rs.500 each under section 
302 IPC. They were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment ranging 
from six montlis to one.year for the other offences. The other accused 
G 
were convicted for mmor offences and released on probation. The re-
spondent appealed against the conviction and sentence. The High Court 
acquitted the respondents of the major charge under section 302 IPC 
and recorded the conviction under section 304 Part-I reducing the 
sentence of life imprisonment to the term already undergone, and en-
hanced the sentence of fine. No appeal was preferred by the State. 
) -
H 
However, the complaint.filed an appeal by special leave. 
).. 
-
662 
..:. 
SHAM SUNDER v. PURAN 
663 
Disposing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD I. There is the evidence of only the interested witnesses 
who have the tendency to exaggerate and involve even innocent persons. 
Most of the accused have sustained injuries and in explaining the same, 
the prosecution witnesses have not come forward with a truthful 
account. In the melee that ensued on account of the aggressive attitude 
of the respondents and other members of the family who participated 
B 
c 
and used force against P and his associates, in all probabilities in the 
exercise of right of private defence. However, the circumstances did not 
warrant the causing of death and the respondents must be deemed to 
have exceeded their right. The nature of the injuries indicate that they 
were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and had 
been inflicted intentionally. In such circumstances, the act of the 
respondents squarely falls under section 304 Part-I, IPC. The High 
Court has not given any cogent or clear reasons for its conclusion and 
whatever reason has been stated is erroneous. It is on the basis of the 
statement given in the course of investigation by a person who was not 
examined in the case that the High Court has drawn its conclusion. - 'o 
However, the conviction under section 304 Part-I, IPC is maintained. 
2. The High Court has reduced the sentence to the term of 
imprisonment already undergone, and enhanced the fine. The respon-
dents have undergone imprisonment only for a short period of less than 
six months and, in a grave crime like this, the sentenCe awarded is 
E 
rather inadequate. No particular reason has been given by the High 
Court for awarding such sentence. The Court in fixing the punishment 
for any particular crime should take into consideration the nature of the 
offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and "the degree of 
deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of punishment should 
be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The sentence imposed by 
I" 
the High Court appears to be so grossly and entirely inadequate as to 
involve a failure of justice. The Sentence is enhanced to one of rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of five years. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal

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