STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 08-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 613
613
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2022)
APRIL 08, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Appeal by State: Conviction of accused-B by the trial Court
for the offence u/s.307 IPC for having caused serious injuries on
the vital part of the body of the victim/injured – Trial Court sentenced
accused-B to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment – In an
appeal before the High Court, the accused did not challenge the
conviction, but only prayed the Court to reduce the sentence to the
period already undergone by him by submitting that occurrence
took place about 26 years ago; that they were facing trial since
then; and when the occurrence took place, they were young and
now they are aged persons – High Court, without any detailed
analysis of the facts of the case, nature of injuries caused, weapon
used, simply reduced the sentence to the period already undergone
(44 days) – Held: The manner in which the High Court dealt with
the appeal and has reduced the sentence, without adverting to the
relevant facts and without considering the gravity and nature of
offence, is unsustainable – High Court has dealt with the appeal in
a most casual and cavalier manner – The judgment and order passed
by the High Court reducing the sentence is nothing but an instance
of travesty of justice and against all the principles of law on imposing
appropriate punishment/suitable punishment – As per s.307 IPC,
whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under
such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would
be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also
be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act,
the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to
such punishment as mentioned in s.307 IPC – In the instant case,
accused-B could have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
and/or at least up to ten years – Trial court sentenced him to undergo
three years rigorous imprisonment – Therefore, as such, trial court
already took a very lenient view while imposing the sentence of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
only three years’ rigorous imprisonment – Therefore, High Court
ought not to have interfered with the same – Merely because a long
period lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground
to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate
– High Court did not at all advert to the relevant factors while
imposing appropriate/suitable punishment/sentence – The manner
in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the appeal
is highly deprecated – Penal Code, 1860 – s.307 – Judicial
deprecation.
Appeal: Appeal preferred by the State against order of
probation passed in favour of accused-M – Trial court granted
benefit of probation to accused-M, against which the State did not
prefer any appeal before the High Court and it was the accused
who preferred appeal, which came to be dismissed – State ought
not to have preferred the instant appeal against the accused-M,
when his appeal before the High Court was dismissed and the
conviction was confirmed – If the State was aggrieved against
granting the benefit of probation, in that case, in the first instance,
the State ought to have preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Appeal: Delay on part of State in filing appeal – Condonation
of – Plea by accused that they have resettled in their lives and have
not indulged in any criminal activity and therefore, substantial delay
on part of State in filing appeal should not be condoned – Held:
Merely on the technical ground of delay and merely on the ground
that the accused have resettled in their lives and their conduct has
since been satisfactory and they have not indulged in any criminal
activity, is no ground not to condone the delay and not to consider
the appeal on merits – The delay of 1880 days in preferring appeal
is condoned.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.The approach of the High Court is most cavalier.
Therefore, the order of the High Court merits interference by
this Court. Merely on the technical ground of delay and merely
on the ground that after the impugned judgment and order, which
is unsustainable, the accused have resettled in their lives and
their conduct has since been satisfactory and they have not
indulged in any criminal acti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.