The Apex Court in the present case dealt with the appeals instituted by the State in order to assail the impugned order and judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan dated May 6, 2015 wherein it reduced rigorous imprisonment of three years of the respondent by 44 days charged under the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A single -judge Bench of Justice MR Shah allowed the appeal by observing that an offence of such gravity demands no leniency and remitting the imprisonment depicts the “casual and cavalier” approach followed by the High Court in a criminal proceeding and gives a wrong message to the society at large, who holds faith in the Judiciary to meet the ends of justice.
Factual Matrix
Factual background of the case was that the respondents were tried by the Trial Court under Sections 147, 148, 149, 477 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 1 was charged under Section 307 of the IPC for causing grave injury on the skull/middle part of the head of a person named Phool Chand. It was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the respondent no.1 caused grave injuries to the victim, which was sufficient enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Trial Court convicted respondent no. 1 to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of IPC. As far as the case of the other accused was concerned, the Court convicted him; however he received benefit of probation. Aggrieved by the order and the judgment of the Trial Court, the respondents- Banwari Lal and Mohan Lal approached the High Court through appeals. The prayer on behalf of the respondent no. 1 was to reduce the period of sentence on the ground that the occurrence of the crime took place March 31, 1989. Having said that, the respondent prayed that he was facing trial for the last 26 years and at the time of occurrence of the offence they were young and now they are old/aged persons. It was also submitted that respondent no. 1 shall also be granted the benefit of probation as is the case of the other accused, Mohan Lal . The High Court partly allowed the appeal, by accepting to reduce the sentence of the respondent no.1 by 44 days(the days he already spent in confinement). However, the appeal of the accused Mohan Lal was dismissed.
The present appeals before the Apex Court were instituted by the State on being aggrieved by the order and the judgment passed by the High Court along with the application to condone the delay of 1880 days.
Case of the Appellant
The Counsel for the State strongly opposed the remission of sentence granted by the High Court by submitting that the High Court did not consider the mitigating and aggravating factors relevant for the purpose of imposing an appropriate punishment/sentence. It was further submitted that the High Court neglected the nature of the offence and the grave injuries sustained by the victim.
On account of above submissions and relying on precedents of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Udham and and Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar v. State of Gujarat, it was prayed to allow the present appeals dismiss the impugned judgment of High Court.
Case of the Respondents
The counsel for the respondents on the other hand countered the same by stating that the trial almost continued up to 26 years and at the time of the occurrence, the respondents were young and now they are old/ aged persons. It was also submitted that the respondents have not indulged in any criminal activity since then and the delay of 1880 days cannot be condoned. It was further submitted that in the matter pertaining to accused Mohan Lal, the State did not institute any appeal before the High Court against the judgement of the High Court and therefore, the State can now not seek an opportunity to assail the same.
This Court , in the case of Soman v. The State of Kerala observed “Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales — most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence. 27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”
In another decision, of Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar, this Court has observed and held that the purpose and justification behind sentencing is not only retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation but deterrence as well. In another decision of case Mohan Lal (supra), this Court observed, “Since in many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that the courts will have to take into account certain principles while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness”.
Observation of the Court
Apex Court observed that the approach of the High Court was “cavalier” The grounds such as delay in filing of appeal by the State against the impugned order and the that the respondents have settled back in their lives plays no relevance in not condoning the delay of 1880 days. It was further submitted that the injury caused to the victim was grave in nature and on the main party of the body. It came out to be so grave that it was sufficient enough to cause death to the victim. The Court stated that it is pertinent to note, that usually in offence of such gravity, the sentence is not less than 10 years or for life under Section 307 of the IPC.
Thus, in the present case the accused could have undergone life imprisonment or at least up to 10 years, however the Trial Court was already lenient and pronounced the sentence of three years. Therefore, in view of the above observation and findings of this Court on the above cited cases, the Court condemned the High Court for their “casual” approach. It was stated that the Apex Court deals with a plethora of such cases wherein the High Court does not consider relevant facts while deciding the sentence and follow shortcuts.
Thus, the appeal was partly allowed and the impugned order and judgement of the High Court was set aside. As far as the case of the accused Mohan Lal was concerned, the Court was of the view that if the State wanted to challenge the benefit of probation granted by the Trial Court, the same should have been done before the High Court. Thus, the order of the Trial Court was restored and the appeal of the State against the accused Mohan Lal was dismissed.
Case Details
Before: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs. Banwari Lal and Another
Picture Source :
