SUMER SINGH versus SURAJBHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 882 · Decided: 05-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
[2014) 5 S.C.R. 882 
SUMER SINGH 
v. 
SURAJBHAN SINGH AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 942 of 2014) 
MAY 05, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Art. 136 - Special leave to appeal - Held: An injured 
aggrieved party can prefer an appeal by special leave and 
power of Supreme Court under Art. 136 being of wide 
amplitude, it can remove injustice and impose adequate 
0 
sentence when facts and circumstances so warrant - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 377(3). 
Appeal: 
Criminal appeal by State for enhancement of sentence 
E - Held: In such an appeal, accused can plead for his acquittal 
on establishing that there is no material on record to sustain 
·his conviction. 
F 
Criminal Law: 
Right of private defence - Hand of victim chpped off over 
a land dispute - Held: Exercise of right of private defence 
even if not specifically taken in statement uls 313, CrPC, it 
can always be gathered from facts and circumstances -
In 
the instant case7 on the basis of evidence of record, a finding 
G has been returned by trial court that on the day of occurrence, 
possession of land in dispute was with the victim and others, 
and accused had no right to forcibly evict them - Further, 
victims were not armed with weapons and were peacefully 
H 
carrying on their agricultural activities when accused persons 
882 
SUMER SINGH v. SURAJBHAN SINGH 
883 
A 
came armed with weapons and attacked the - Injuries on 
assailants were a/so absolutely simple in nature :- Therefore, 
it cannot be said that the defence has been able to establish 
the plea of right of private defense, nor does the question of 
exceeding the said right arise. 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.326, 307 and 3231149 - Grievous injuries caused to 
victims by accused over a land dispute - Hand of victim from 
wrist chopped off - Conviction and sentence of 5 years RI with c 
a fine uls 307 !PC and 4 years RI with a fine u/s 326 !PC -
High Court on appeal upholding conviction u/s 326 /PC but 
reducing sentence to period already undergone i.e. 7 days -
Held: No reason has been ascribed by High Court for 
reducing the sentence -
Manner in which the crime was 0 
committed speaks eloquently about its brutality - The gravity 
of the offence speaks for itself - A young man's hand has 
been cut off from the wrist - The fear psychosis that would have 
reigned in the society at the relevant time has to be perceived 
- High Court while reducing the sentence to the period 
already undergone, i.e., seven days for such an offence, failed E 
to take these aspects into consideration and possibly felt that 
increase of fine amount would serve the cause of justice -
Increase in fine amount or grant of compensation under the 
Code would not be a justified answer in law - Interference in 
manifestly inadequate and unduly lenient sentence is the 
F · 
justifiable warrant, for the Court cannot Close its eyes to the 
agony and anguish of the victim and, eventually, to the cry of 
the society - Therefore, striking the balance, the ·cause of 
justice would be best subserved if the responden-accused is 
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years G 
apart from the fine that has been imposed by the trial judge 
- Ordered accordingly. 
· 
Sentence/Sentencing: 
Reduction of sentence - High Court reducing the 
H 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 
A sentence of 5 years RI to period already undergone i.e. 7 
days and increasing the fine amount - Held: Though the 
question of sentence is a matter of discretion, yet the said 
discretion cannot be used by a court in a fanciful and 
whimsical manner - Very strong reasons on consideration of 
B relevant factors have to form the fulcrum for lenient use of said 
discretion - Judges are to constantly remind themselves that 
use of discretion has to be guided by law, and what is fair 
under the obtaining circumstances -
It has come to the 
notice of the Court that in certain heinous crimes or crimes 
c committed in a brutal manner High Courts in exercise of 
appellate jurisdiction have imposed extremely lenient 
sentences which shock the conscience - It should not be so 
- It is the duty of the court to impose adequate sentence, for 
one of the purposes of imposition of requisite sentence is 
0 protection of society and a legitimate response to collective 
conscience - The paramount guiding principle should be that · 
punishment should be proportionate - Judicial notice. 
The respo

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