STATE OF U.P. versus KISHAN

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 30-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. 
V. 
KI SHAN 
NOVEMBER 30, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, I 860 : 
S. 304 (Part-/I)-Conviction by trial court-Seven years RI imposed-
C High Court, by non-speaking order, reducing the sentence to the period 
already undergone merely on the ground of lapse of time-Held, as the High 
Court disposed of the matter by an unreasoned order, matter remitted back 
to it for decision afresh on the question of sentence. 
D 
E 
Criminal Law : 
Sentencing-A liberal attitude by imposing meager sentence merely for 
lapse of time would be counter-productive-It is the duty of every court to 
award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the 
manner in which it was committed. 
Respondent-accused was prosecuted under Section 302 IPC for 
causing homicidal death of the victim by inflicting a spade injury on his 
person over a land dispute. The trial court convicted the accused of the 
offence under section 304 (Part-II) IPC and sentenced him to seven 
F years R.I. In the appeal filed by the accused before the High Court, it 
was pleaded that the incident having taken place in 1988, a lenient view 
as regards the sentence be taken. The High Court, by a non-speaking 
order, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Aggrieved, 
the State filed the appeal. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or 
taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time will be 
result-wise counter-productive in the long run and against societal interest 
H which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence 
530 
STATE v. KISHAN [PASAYAT, J.] 
531 
inbuilt in the sentencing system. The Court will be failing in its duty if A 
appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been 
committed not only against the individual victim but also against the 
society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be 
awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to 
and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime B 
has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public 
abhorrence and it should "respond to the societ's cry for justice against 
the criminal". [533-G-H; 534-A-B] 
State of MP. v. Ghanshyam Singh, [2003) 8 SCC 13 and Sevaka 
Perumal Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (1991) SC 1463, relied on. 
C 
Dennis Councle MCG Dautha v. State ofCallifornia, 402 US 183; 28, 
L.D. 2d 711, referred to. 
1.2. Since the matter was disposed of by the High Court in a most D 
unsatisfactory manner, practically by an unreasoned order, it would be 
appropriate for the High Court to re-hear the appeal on the question of 
sentence. It is rather surprising that the High Court has not even indicated 
what period of custody the respondent has suffered. While deciding the 
matt"._r afresh the High Court shall keep in view the position in law as 
highlighted by this Court in Ghansyam Singh 's case. (534-B-D] 
E 
State of MP. v. Ghanshyam Singh, [2003) 8 SCC 12, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1381of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.2003 of the High Court 
judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl. A. No. 37 of 1995. 
R.K. Singh and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted. 
F 
G 
The State of U.P. is in appeal against the judgment of the learned H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. By the said 
impugned judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995 was disposed of by 
reducing the respondent's sentence of 7 years RI imposed in respect of 
offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 
(in short the 'IPC') to the period already undergone with a direction to pay 
B fine of Rs.15,000 with default stipulation of one year RI. 
The respondent (hereafter referred to as the 'accused') was found 
guilty by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur. The accused had faced trial 
for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for having caused homicidal 
death ofone Chetai (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') on 7.5.1988. 
C The injury was caused by a spade over a land dispute. Though the accused 
was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, 
the trial Judgr held that appropriate conviction would be 

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