STATE OF M.P. versus NAJAB KHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 01-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 301 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
NAJAB KHAN AND ORS. 
(Criminal Apppeal No. 809 of 2013) 
JULY 01, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Sentence/Sentencing - Conviction uls. 326134 /PC by 
courts below - Sentence of 3 years RI imposed by trial court 
A 
B 
- Reduced by High Court to sentence for the period already C 
undergone i.e. 14 days - On appeal, Held: In view of the 
serious nature of injuries, High Court was not justified in 
reducing the sentence to the period already undergone -
Facts and circumstances of the case, nature of crime, manner 
of planning and commission of the offence, motive, conduct o 
of accused, nature of weapons and all other attending 
circumstances are relevant while imposing sentence - It is 
duty of the Court to award appropriate sentence and not to 
show undue sympathy - Sentence awarded by trial court 
restored - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 326134. 
E 
The three appellants-accused alongwith another co-
accused 'M' were charged u/ss. 307, 341 and 326 IPC. 
The proceedings against the co-accused 'M' were stayed 
by High Court. During trial, in view of the compromise 
between the parties, the appellants-accused were 
acquitted u/s. 341 IPC. Trial court convicted them for the 
offence punishable u/s. 326/34 IPC and sentenced them 
to 3 years RI and imposed fine of Rs.500/- each with 
default clause. 
In appeal, the appellants accused did not challenge 
their conviction, but prayed for reducing their sentence. 
High Court, confirmed their conviction and reduced their 
sentence to the period already undergone, i.e. 14 days. 
301 
F 
G 
H 
302 
SUPR.EME COURT REPQRTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A Hence the present appeal by the State. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is settled principle of law that the 
punishment should meet the gravity of the offence 
B committed by the accused and courts should not show 
undue sympathy with the accused persons. In operating 
the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective 
machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The 
facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature 
C of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and 
committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the 
conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and 
all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which 
would enter into the area of consideration. Undue 
o sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more 
harm to the justice system to undermine the public 
confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every 
court to award proper sentence having regard to the 
nature of the offence and the manner in which it was 
E executed or committed. The Courts must not only keep 
in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the 
society at large while considering the imposition of 
appropriate punishment. [Paras 9 and 15) [307-D; 308-B-
E; 311-B-C] 
F 
Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and 
Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 359: 2006 (1) SCR 477; Ahmed Hussein 
Vali Mohammed Saiyed and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat 2009 
(8) SCR 719: (2009) 7 SCC 254; Jameel vs. State of Uttar 
Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 532: 2009 (15) SCR 712; Guru 
G Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa vs. State of Kamataka (2012) 8 
SCC 734: 2012 (8) SCR 189; Gopal Singh vs. State of 
Uttarakhand JT 2013 (3) SC 444; Hazara Singh vs. Raj 
Kumar and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 142 - relied on. 
H 
2. Considering the nature of injuries on the person 
STATE OF M.P. v. NAJAB KHAN AND 'ORS. 
303 
of the complainant, due to which he remained in hospital 
A 
for 29 days, the High Court was not justified in reducing 
the sentence to the period already undergone without 
assigning any acceptable and special reason for the 
same. The High Court also failed to take note of the 
opinion of the doctor that the injuries inflicted could have 
B 
posed threat to the complainant's life. Though both the 
parties have amicably settled, in view of the fact that the 
offence charged under Section 326 is non compoundable 
and also in the light of serious nature of the injuries and 
no challenge as to conviction, the High Court is not c 
justified in reducing the sentence to the period a,lready 
undergone. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is 
set aside and the sentence imposed on the respondents 
by the trial court is restored. [Paras 8, 16 and 17] [307-B-
C; 311-C-E] 
Case Law Reference: 
2006 (1) SCR 477 
referred to 
Para 9 
(2009) 1 sec 254 
referred to 
Para 10 
2009 (15) SCR 712 
referred to 
P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.