SURJIT SINGH versus NAHARA RAM AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 05-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SURJIT SINGH 
v. 
NAHARA RAM AND ANR. 
AUGUST 5, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Criminal Law-Appropriate sentence-Award of-General princi-
ples-Held: There should be adherence to the principle of proportionality 
according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct-It allows 
C some significant discretion to the judge in awarding a sentence in each 
case-But undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more 
harm to justice system-Therefore, Court must award proper sentence 
having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was 
committed-On facts, High Court not justified in reducing custodial 
D sentence-Enhanced fine having been paid, custodial sentenced reduced 
to 18 months-Out of the fine Rs. 10,000 be paid to the appellant-
Directions issued-Penal Code, 1860-Section 306-Arms Act, 1959-
Section 27. 
On the allegation that the respondent-accused fired several shots 
E resulting in injuries to the appellant, trial court convicted the respond-
ent under section 326 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced 
him to five years rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. 2000 with default 
stipulation and one year rigorous imprisonment under Arms Act. On 
appeal, High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 
F the period of custodial sentence already undergone. However, it 
enhanced the fine to Rs. 25,000. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-informant contended that in view of the nature of the 
injuries sustained, High Court should have interfered with the sen-
G tence; and that the High Court has not indicated any reason to justify 
the reduction of custodial sentence. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Criminal law adheres in general to the principle of 
H proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of 
356 
.... 
SURJIT SINGH v. NAHARA RAM 
357 
each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant A 
discretion to the judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presum-
ably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of 
culpability that are raised by special facts of each case. Judges in 
essence affirms that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in 
practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations like B 
the correctional needs of perpetrator, desirability of keeping him out of 
circulation, tragic results of his crime which inevitably cause a departure 
from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases ofapparent 
injustice that are serious and widespread. Undue sympathy to impose 
inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to C 
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could 
not long endure under such serious threats. Therefore, it is the duty of 
every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the 
offence and the manner in which it was committed. [359-D-E; 359-F-H] 
1.2. In the instant case, taking into account the facts and the D 
principle oflaw, High Court was not justified in reducing the custodial 
sentence. Further, in view of the enhanced fine as imposed by High 
Court having been paid, the custodial sentence is fixed at eighteen 
months. Out of the fine deposited, a sum of Rs. 10,000 shall be paid 
to the appellant. [360-B-CJ 
E 
State of MP. v. Ghanshyam singh, [2003] 8 SCC 13, referred to. 
Law in changing society by Friedman, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. F 
799-800 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.2003 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 81-SB of 1992. 
Amar Vivek, Jasbir Singh Malik and Ms. Kamakshi and S. Mehlwal G 
for the Appellant. 
Ajay Bansal, Addi. Adv. Genl., C.L. Sahu, Amit Yadav and Bimal 
Roy lad for the Respondents . 
The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted. 
The present appeals are by the informant against the respondents 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). Law was set into motion by the 
appellant alleging that while he was spraying his paddy crop in his field, 
B the accused had fired several shots resulting in major or minor injuries to 
him. The accused was charged for alleged commission of offence punish-
able under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter called 
the 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms A~t, 1959 (in short the 'Amrs Act'). 
The learned Additi

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