LexSTATE OF M.P. versus BABULAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 21 STATE OF M.P. v. BABULAL & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2013) AUGUST 12, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] A B Sentence/Sentencing - Conviction u/ss. 148, 3241149 and 3261149 IPC and s~ntence of 3 years SI by trial court and appellate court - Revi~ional Court upheld the conviction, but C reduced the sentence to 3 months on the ground of delay in criminal proceedings - Held: It is solemn duty of Court to strike a proper balance while awarding sentence - Taking a lenient view showing misplaced sympathy to the accused on any consideration reduces the criminal justice system into a D mockery - In the present case, in view of the serious nature of injuries on the victims, High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 148, 3241 149 and 3261 149. · Trial court convicted the respondents-accused for E commission of offences punishable ulss. 148, 324/149 (two .counts) and 326/149 (two counts) IPC and sentenced them to 3 years SI and imposed fine with default clause. In appeal, High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. In Revision Petition, accused F prayed only for reducing heir sentence in view of the fact that criminal proceedings had protracted for about 7 years. The Revisional Court reduced the sentence from 3 years to 3 months. Hence the present appeal by the S~~- G AHowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. One of the prime objectives of criminal law 21 H 22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. The most relevant determinative factor of sentencing is proportionality between crime and B punishment keeping in miri.d the social interest and consciousness of the society. It is a mockery of the crimjrial justice system to take a lenient view showing mis- placed sympathy to the accused on any consideration whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of criminal c proceedings. The Punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society being abhorrent to the basic principles of sentencing. Thus, it is the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding sentence as awarding a lesser sentence ··•;,.. . .J:> encourages a criminal and as a result of the same, the • .. $.~Ciety suffers. [Para 16] [31-B-E] -,~ 2. In the present case, four persons were injured and two of them had more than one head injury. There were too many injuries on their persons and some of them had E been inflicted on vital parts of the body. High Court could not be justified in taking a lenient view which reduces the administration of the criminal justice system to a mockery. Therefore, the Judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Trial Court is restored. [Paras 17 and 20] F [31-E-G; 32-E] Mahesh and etc. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1987 SC 1346: 1987 (2) SCR 710; State of Punjab vs. Bira Singh and Ors. (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 708; Chinnadurai vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1996 SC 546: 1995 (3) Suppl. SCC 686; G State of U.P. vs. Shri Kishan AIR 2005 SC 1250; Sadhupati Nageswara Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2012 SC 3242: 2012 (6) SCR 1143; Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3802: 2012 (1) SCR 145; State of Karnataka vs. Krishnappa AIR 2000 SC 1470: 2000 (2) H SCR 761; Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC STATE OF M.P. v. BABULAL & ORS. 23 1677: 2000 (3) SCR 1000; Dhananjoy Chatterjee@ Dhanna A VS. State of West Bengal (1994) 2 sec 220: 1994 (1) SCR 37; Ravji@ Ram Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996 SC 787: 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 195; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar (2012) 8 SCC 537: 2012 (7) SCR 359 - relied on. B Ram Govind and Ors. vs. State of M.P. (2002) 3 MPHT 301; Vijay Singh vs. State of M.P. (1994) II MPWN 98; Havaldar Singh vs. State of M.P. (1995) I MPWN 275 - disapproved. Case Law Reference: 1987 (2) SCR 710 relied on Para 8 (1995) Supp. 3 sec 708 relied on Para 9 1995 (3) Suppl. sec 686 relied on Para 10 AIR 2005 SC 1250 relied on Para 11 2012 (6) SCR 1143 relied on Para 12 2012 (1) SCR 145 relied on Para 13 2000 (2)' SCR 761 relied on Para 13 2000 (3) SCR 1000 relied on Para 13 1994 (1) SCR 37 relied on Para 14 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 195 relied on Para 14 . 2012 (7) SCR 359 relied on Pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.