STATE OF PUNJAB versus BAWA SINGH

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 15-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 1 S.C.R. 709 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
V. 
BAWA SINGH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2015) 
JANUARY 15, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Sentence/Sentencing - Sentence of one and half years 
for conviction u/s 326 /PC - Reduced by Revisional Court to 
A 
B 
the period already undergone (about 4 months) - Propriety C 
of - Held: It is duty of the Court to award proper sentence 
having regard to the nature of offence - Undue sympathy by 
means of inadequate sentence does more harm to the justice 
system to undermine the public confidence - High Court, 
without appreciation of the evidence and consideration of the 
D 
gravity of the offence has taken lenient view and shown undue 
sympathy- Matter remitted to High Court to pass order afresh 
in revision petition - Penal Code, 1860 - s.326. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. The sentencing courts are expected to 
consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on 
E 
the question of sentence and proceed to impose a 
sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 
F 
The court 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. 
Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of 
time without considering the degree of the offence will be 
G 
counter-productive in the long run and against the 
interest of the society. [para 17] [719-D-F] 
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281 
709 
H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Singh, 2014 (12) 
SCALE 672 - relied on. 
2. Undue sympathy by means of imposing 
inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice 
8 system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy 
of law and the society cannot endure long, under serious 
threats. If the courts do not protect the injured, the injured 
would then resort to personal vengeance. Therefore, the 
duty of any court is to award proper sentence having 
C regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in 
which it was committed. [para 11] [715-0-E] 
3. In the instant case, after proper appreciation of 
evidence the trial court as well as the Sessions Court 
rightly came to the conclusion that the accused-
D respondent was not entitled for benefit to probation since 
he caused injuries on the person of the complainant with 
Gandasa and dispute between the parties was already 
pending. The trial court has not committed any illegality 
in passing the order of conviction and in the appeal 
E preferred by the accused, findings of the trial court were 
affirmed. However, without proper appreciation of the 
evidence and consideration of gravity of the offence, the 
High Court has taken lenient stand, if not casual and 
shown undue sympathy by modifying the conviction to 
F the period already undergone. Hence the impugned order 
passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is 
remanded back to the High Court to pass a fresh order 
in the revision petition [para 10 and 19] [714-H; 715-A-C; 
720-C] 
G 
Sevaka Perumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 (2) SCR 
711 = (1991) 3 SCC 471; Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana 
vs. State of West Bengal 1994 (1) SCR 37 = (1994) 2 SCC 
220; Mahesh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1987 
(2) SCR 710 = (1987) 3 sec 80, Hazara Singh versus Raj 
H Kumar 2013 (5 ) SCR 979 = (2013) 9 SCC 516, Shailesh 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH 
711 
Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat 2006 (1) SCR 477 = (2006) 
A 
2 SCC 359; Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed vs. 
State of Gujarat 2009 (8) SCR719 = (2009) 7 SCC 254-
relied on. 
Cctse Law Reference : 
1991 (2) SCR 711 
relied on 
para 11 
1994 (1)SCR37 
relied on 
para 12 
1987 (2) SCR 710 
relied on 
para 13 
2013 (5) SCR 979 
relied on 
para 14 
2006 (1) SCR477 
relied on 
para 15 
2009 (8) SCR 719 
relied on 
para 16 
(2014) s sec 281 
relied on 
para 18 
· 2014 (12) SCALE 672 relied on 
para 18 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 90 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2013 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh \n Crl. Rev. 
No. 1789 of 2013. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
V. Madhukar, AAG, Anvita Cowshish, Naresh Bakshi for 
F 
the Appellant. 
Rishi Malhotra, B. Veera Swamy Raju for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment dated 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.