STATE OF M.P. versus UDAIBHAN

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1080 · Decided: 01-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 1S.C.R.1080 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
UDAIBHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2016 etc.) 
MARCH 01, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) 
Sentence !Sentencing - Conviction of one accused inter alia 
u!s. 307 !PC and other tll'o accused u!s. 307/3./ !PC - Sentence of 
C 
JO years RI - High Court altered the conviction u!s.307 & 30713./ 
to one u!s.326 and 32613./ and reduced the sentence to the period 
already undergone (i.e. one year nine 111011ths) - Appeal by State -
Held: Ir is duty of rhe court awarding sentence to ensure jusrice to 
both the parties - ·Undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to 
be avoided - Reducing of sentence by High Court in absence of 
D any mitigating circumstance, suffers from the vice of being over; 
lenient - Sentence is altered to three years imprisonment, in place 
of the period already undergone - Penal Code, 1860 - s.326 and 
326134. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. It is the duty of the Court awarding sentence to 
ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency 
in awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not 
have the necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused 
and does not re-assure the society that the offender has been 
properly dealt with. It is not a very healthy situation to leave the 
injured and complainant side thoroughly dissatisfied with a very 
lenient punishment to the accused. In the present case the order 
of punishment imposed by the High Court suffers from the vice 
of being over-lenient even in absence of any mitigating 
circumstance. The High Court failed to keep under focus various 
relevant factors for a proper decision on the quantum of sentence 
which should have been imposed even for the altered conviction 
under Section 326 or Section 326/34 of the IPC. The High Court 
did not even note down the six injuries on the complainant. [Paras 
4 and 5)[1082-D, G, H; 1083-A-B) 
1080 
STATE OF M.P. v. VDAIBHAN 
2. The ends of justice would be satisfied by imposing on all 
the three accused persons a sentence of rigorous imprisonment 
for three years in place of period already undergone, for the 
offence under Section 326 as well as Section 326/34 of the IPC. 
The other sentence which has been maintained by the High Court 
is left intact. However, it is clarified that sentence ofimprisonment 
for different offences against the respondents shall run 
concurrently. [Para 6][1083-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
182of2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal 
No. 92 of2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at 
Gwalior. 
Bansuri Swaraj, Raghunatha Sethapathy, C.D. Singh for the 
Appellant. 
Dr. Pooja Jha, Am Ian Kumar Ghosh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. These appeals by special leave 
have been preferred by State of Madhya Pradesh against common 
judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.92/ 
2002 and 106/2002. 
2. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has partly 
allowed criminal appeals preferred by the three accused, namely, 
Rajaram, Udaibhan and Hakim Singh, respondents in these appeals so 
as to convert their conviction under Section 307 of!PC for Rajaram and 
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the·other two 
appellants into one under Section 326 for Rajaram and 326/34 for the 
other two. The High Court did not interfere with the fine imposed on the 
respondents for the offence noted above as well as for the offence 
under Section 323 IPC but reduced the sentence for imprisonment which 
was R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 as 
well as Section 307 read with Section 34 of the !PC to a period already 
undergone by the respondents which was of one year and nine months 
only. 
3. Since the High Court did not disbelieve the substratum of the 
prosecution case and has maintained the conviction of respondents, albeit 
1081 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1082 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
for an offence minor to one under Section 307 or Section 307 read with 
Section 34 of IPC, the only material issue worth consideration in these 
appeals is whether the High Court in the matter of awarding of 
punishment has ignored the relevant considerations and adopted an 
erroneous approach. The High Court accepted the contention advanced 
on behalf of the accused that t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.