LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus GHANSHYAM SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. GHANSHY AM SINGH SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-Section 300 Exception 4 & Section 304 Part-1- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Conviction and sentence- High Court reducing the sentence to the one already undergone which is C about 2 years-On appeal, held, there should be proportion between crime and punishment-Liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking sympathetic view due to lapse of time will be counter-productive and against social interest-Passage of time cannotjustifY minimal sentence- Hence, punishment enhanced to 6 years imprisonment. D Six persons including the respondent armed with different weapons jointly assaulted PWl. Hearing the alarm raised by PWl, the deceased, PW4 and PWS arrived at the spot. The respondent, armed with a gun, fired at PWS, who received injury on the arm. The respondent then fired two shots at the deceased causing injuries on the leg and E abdomen. The deceased died subsequently. All the six accused including the respondent were found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with sections 148 and 149 IPC. In appeal, High Court held that the act of using fore-arm and F firing of two shots by the respondent would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC since the act was done in the course of sudden and free fight and was committed without premeditation. The respondent was held guilty of offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and was acquitted of other charges. The sentence imposed was restricted to the period already undergone, which was about 2 years and a fine of G Rs. 15000 to be paid as compensation to the widow of the deceased. The other accused were held guilty of offence under Section 323 IPC. In appeal to this Court against the respondent, the State contended that the respondent should be held guilty of offence under Section 302 H IPC for murder; and that even though the case of culpable homicide 618 STATE v. GHANSHY AM SINGH 619 not amounting to murder was made out against the respondent for A offence under Section 304 Part I IPC, the custodial sentence of two years granted by the High Court is too meagre considering the gravity of the offences and the brutal manner of attacks made by the respondent. The respondent contended that the sentence awarded by the High Court was just and proper; and that after two decades, it would be unreasonable and inequitable to send the respondent back to custody particularly when the fine amount has been deposited. Allowing the appeal, the Court B c HELD : 1.1. Section 304 Part-I IPC is a species of homicidal death. It is statutorily described as culpable homicide though not amounting to murder as defined under the IPC. Taking note of the purpose for which a sentence is imposed, it cannot be laid down as a D rule of universal application that long passage of time in all cases would justify minimal sentence. Long pendency of a matter by itself could not justify lesser sentence. (624-F) State of Punjab v. Bira Singh & Ors., [1995) Supp 3 SCC 708; Pashora Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 33 and E Di/bag Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 103, referred to. 1.2. Law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through F instrumentality of criminal law. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of edifice of" order" should meetthe challenges confronting G the society. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. (624-G, HJ, 625-A, BJ 1.3. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do H 620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and the society could 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 man
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.