THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SURESH

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 20-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
SURESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 20, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Sentencing – Principle of Proportionality – Case of the
prosecution that the accused-respondent assaulted his father who
later succumbed to the injury – Trial Court found the respondent
guilty u/s.304 Part II, IPC and awarded him 3 years’ rigorous
imprisonment while setting off the period of detention already
undergone (3 months, 21 days) against the term of imprisonment
imposed on him – High Court though upheld the conviction of the
respondent but modified the sentence of 3 years’ rigorous
imprisonment to that of the period already undergone i.e. 3 months
and 21 days – On appeal, held: When an accused is convicted for
the offence u/Part II of s.304, he could be sentenced to imprisonment
for a term which may extend to a period of 10 years, or with fine, or
both – In this case, the Trial Court chose to award 3 years’ rigorous
imprisonment to the respondent – Punishment so awarded by the
Trial Court was itself leaning towards leniency, essentially in view
of the fact that the respondent was 26 years of age at the time of the
incident in question – However, the High Court further reduced the
punishment to the period already undergone – Further indulgence
by the High Court, over and above the leniency already shown by
the Trial Court was totally uncalled for – High Court omitted to
consider the requirement of balancing the mitigating and
aggravating factors while dealing with the question of awarding
adequate punishment – Punishment to be awarded in a case has to
be commensurate with the gravity of crime as also with the relevant
facts and attending circumstances – Offending act in question had
been of respondent assaulting his father and then the attempt to
cover up the crime by taking his father to hospital and suggesting
as if the victim sustained injury because of fall from the roof – Acts
and deeds of the respondent had been of killing his own father and
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 836
836
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
837
then, of furnishing false information – In such a case, there was no
further scope for leniency on the question of punishment than what
was already shown by the Trial Court – High Court not justified in
reducing the sentence to an abysmally inadequate period of less
than 4 months – Judgment of the High Court set aside and
that of the Trial Court restored – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.201, 304
Part II, 302.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court interfered with and reduced
the sentence awarded by the Trial Court on rather irrelevant
considerations, while ignoring the relevant factors and the
governing principles for the award of punishment and hence, the
order impugned cannot be sustained. With the evidence on record,
it was clearly established that the respondent was author of the
fatal injury in question. [Para 10-11][843-B-D]
1.2  Awarding of just and adequate punishment to the wrong
doer in case of proven crime remains a part of duty of the Court.
The punishment to be awarded in a case has to be commensurate
with the gravity of crime as also with the relevant facts and
attending circumstances. The task is of striking a delicate balance
between the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. No strait
jacket formula for sentencing is available but the requirement of
taking a holistic view of the matter cannot be forgotten.   In the
process of sentencing, any one factor, whether of extenuating
circumstance or aggravating, cannot, by itself, be decisive of the
matter. [Paras 14, 15][847-E-H]
1.3  When an accused is convicted for the offence under
Part II of Section 304, he could be sentenced to imprisonment
for a term which may extend to a period of 10 years, or with fine,
or both. In this case, the Trial Court chose to award the
punishment of 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment to the respondent.
The punishment so awarded by the Trial Court had itself been
leaning towards leniency, essentially in view of the fact that the
respondent was 26 years of age at the time of the incident in
question. However, the High Court further proceeded to reduce
the punishment to the period already undergone (i.e., 3 months
and 21 days) on consideration of the factors: (i) that the incident
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
had taken place at spur of the moment; (ii) that the res

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