STATE OF M.P. Vs. SURENDRA SINGH

Tags Sentence

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 2401 of 2014, Judgment Date: Nov 13, 2014

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2401 OF 2014

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5947 of 2013)

State of Madhya Pradesh ….Appellant(s)

Versus

Surendra Singh …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.Y. EQBAL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal by special leave

against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2012 passed by learned Single

Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, who allowed the

appeal, preferred by the respondent-accused, in part maintaining his

conviction but reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court to the

period already undergone subject to depositing further compensation of

Rs.2,000/- to the widow/mother of the deceased.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.5.1998 a ward boy of

Sabalgarh Hospital lodged a written report at Sabalgarh police station to

the effect that one Vijay Singh of village Mangroli died in accident caused

by a jeep bearing registration no.SP 7H 6045. Thereafter, case was

investigated and challan was filed against the respondent-accused, who was

driver of the jeep and the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent

driving. After completion of trial, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Sabalgarh convicted the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to

undergo six months and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively with

fine of Rs.2,500/-. Aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the

trial court, respondent filed appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge,

Sabalgarh, who upheld the order of conviction passed by the trial court.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the respondent-accused moved

the High Court in revision. Learned counsel for the respondent assailed

the order and in the alternative submitted before the High Court that the

accused, who is a poor person, has already served substantive part of jail

sentence and prayed that his sentence may be reduced to the period already

undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced. Learned

counsel for the State objected and submitted that revisional jurisdiction

of the High Court is limited and no interference is called for in the

concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The High Court partly

allowed revision petition of the accused maintaining findings of conviction

of the accused with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence

awarded to the accused is reduced to the period already undergone subject

to depositing further compensation of Rs.2,000/- payable to the

widow/mother of the deceased Vijay Singh.

5. Dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, State of Madhya

Pradesh has preferred this appeal contending that the High Court has

limited revisional jurisdiction and ought not to have interfered with the

concurrent findings of the courts below. It is further contended that High

Court has erred in passing impugned order of partly allowing the revision

petition of the accused without taking into consideration the gravity of

the act committed by the respondent, whereby an innocent man lost his life

due to negligence of the respondent.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties appearing on either

side.

7. In the instant case, after proper appreciation of evidence the trial

court came to the conclusion that the accused had endangered the life of

Vijay by driving the jeep on a public road in a rash and negligent manner.

The accused dashed the jeep against a pulia first and then against a Babul

tree. As a result of such accident Vijay Singh, who was travelling in the

jeep got injured and died, and another person Mangilal, who was also in the

jeep, received injuries. We are of the opinion that the trial court has

not committed any illegality in passing the order of conviction and in the

appeal preferred by the accused findings of the trial court were affirmed.

However, without proper appreciation of the evidence and consideration of

gravity of the offence, learned Single Judge of the High Court shown undue

sympathy by modifying the conviction to the period already undergone.

8. In our considered opinion, the High Court while passing the impugned

order has completely failed to follow the principles enunciated by this

Court in catena of decisions. Undue sympathy by means of imposing

inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine

the public confidence in the efficacy of law and the society cannot endure

long under serious threats. If the courts do not protect the injured, the

injured would then resort to personal vengeance. Therefore, the duty of

any court is to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the

offence and the manner in which it was committed. (See Sevaka Perumal vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC 471)

9. In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana vs. State of West Bengal,

(1994) 2 SCC 220, this Court held as under:

“In recent years, the rising crime rate-particularly violent crime against

women has made the criminal sentencing by the courts a subject of concern.

Today there are admitted disparities. Some criminals get very harsh

sentences while many receive grossly different sentence for an essentially

equivalent crime and a shockingly large number even go unpunished, thereby

encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by

weakening the system's credibility. Of course, it is not possible to lay

down any cut and dry formula relating to imposition of sentence but the

object of sentencing should be to see that the crime does not go unpunished

and the victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that

justice has been done to it. In imposing sentences, in the absence of

specific legislation, Judges must consider variety of factors and after

considering all those factors and taking an over-all view of the situation,

impose sentence which they consider to be an appropriate one. Aggravating

factors cannot be ignored and similarly mitigating circumstances have also

to be taken into consideration.

In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon

the atrocity of the crime; the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless

and unprotected state of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment

is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice

against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment

fitting to the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the

crime. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but

also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while

considering imposition of appropriate punishment.”

10. While considering this aspect, the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh

and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1987) 3 SCC 80, remarked that,

“…it will be a mockery of justice to permit these appellants to escape the

extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts.

To give the lesser punishment for the appellants would be to render the

Justice system of this country suspect. The common man will lose faith in

courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of

deterrence more than the reformative jargon. When we say this, we do not

ignore the need for a reformative approach in the sentencing process. ….”

11. In the case of Hazara Singh versus Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516, this

Court has observed that it is the duty of the courts to consider all the

relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has

bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing

policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The

punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the

magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can

assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict. This Court

further observed that the cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that

the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has

committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in

sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.

12. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 2 SCC 359, the

Apex Court opined that

“7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and

demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an

[pic]essential function of the State. It could be achieved through

instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural

conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the

courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges.

The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in

ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be

the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.

Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of ‘order’ should meet the

challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society

stated that: ‘State of criminal law continues to be—as it should be—a

decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.’ Therefore, in

operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery

or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing

process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it

warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature

of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive

for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of

weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which

would enter into the area of consideration.

8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more

harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the

efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious

threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence

having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was

executed or committed, etc.”

13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed

Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254, observed as follows:

“99. … The object of awarding appropriate sentence should be to protect the

society and to deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to (sic

break the) law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the

courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence

which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has

to be stern where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre

sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time

in respect of such offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the

long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for

and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.

100. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the

crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The court

must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but the

society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate

[pic]punishment. The court will be failing in its duty if 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 both

the criminal and the victim belong.”

14. We again reiterate in this case that undue sympathy to impose

inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine

the public confidence in the efficacy of law. 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 executed or committed. The sentencing courts are

expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the

question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the

gravity of the offence. The court must not only keep in view the rights of

the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the

imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre sentence imposed solely on

account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will

be counter-productive in the long run and against the interest of the

society.

15. In a recent decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bablu

- Criminal Appeal No.1845 of 2014, after considering and following the

earlier decisions, this Court reiterated the settled proposition of law

that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of

adequate, just, proportionate punishment which commensurate with gravity,

nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. One

should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while

considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime.

The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of

the society. It is, therefore, solemn duty of the court to strike a proper

balance while awarding the sentence as awarding lesser sentence encourages

any criminal and, as a result of the same, the society suffers.

16. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order reducing

sentence to the period already undergone and, to avoid miscarriage of

justice, this appeal is allowed restoring the sentence imposed by the trial

court. The respondent is directed to surrender within two weeks from

today, failing which, the trial Judge is directed to take appropriate steps

for sending him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

…………………………….J.

(M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………….J.

(Shiva Kirti Singh)

New Delhi,

November 13, 2014.

Back to Judgments