Delhi High Court

Sachin vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 October, 2014

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              Date of Decision: 29th October, 2014

+                       CRL.A. 583/2013
        SACHIN                                   ..... Appellant
                        Through:     Mr. K.K. Sharma and Mr. Vipin
                                     Rathi, Advocates

                        Versus

        STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI           ..... Respondent
                       Through:  Ms. Ritu Gauba, Additional
                                 Public Prosecutor for the State
                                 alongwith SI Sonal Raj, PS New
                                 Usmanpur
                                 Complainant in person
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

                        JUDGMENT

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. The appellant - Sachin impugns the judgment dated

26.03.2013 and order on sentence dated 01.04.2013 in Sessions Case

No.56/11 FIR No.242/11 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code

registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi where he was

convicted under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code(hereinafter

referred to as IPC 1860) and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a term of 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in

default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six

(6) months.

2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is as follows.

3. Rani - daughter of deceased - Pramod Jha got married to

Naveen Jha, brother of accused sometime in February, 2011. A few

days prior to the incident, Rani was quite unwell as such her husband

- Naveen Jha had dropped her at her parents‟ house. On the fateful

day i.e. 05.07.2011 at about 9.30 pm, Pramod Jha along with his son

Vikas went to the house of accused in order to talk about Rani. On

reaching the house of Navin, the appellant - Sachin, who is the

younger brother of Navin Jha met them and got angry by alleging that

they had married an ailing girl to the family of accused and they are

fed up with her continuous treatment. He started hurling abuses and

then Pramod Jha came out of the house. However, the appellant -

Sachin went inside the house, brought a knife and gave knife blow

injuries as a result of which Pramod Jha sustained injuries. The police

was informed, ambulance came and removed the injured to GTB

Hospital. On receipt of DD No.42A SI Sunil Kumar went to the spot

and came to know that injured has been removed to GTB Hospital as

such he went to GTB Hospital where Pramod Jha was found admitted.

He was declared unfit for statement. Vikas was present in the hospital.

He gave the statement Ex.PW1/A which became bedrock of

investigation. An FIR under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code was

registered. Eventually the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 7 th

July, 2011 whereupon Section 302 IPC was added to the case. Post

mortem examination of the deceased opined the cause of death to be

„haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem injury to left femoral

vessels produced by sharp edged weapon‟. Injury No. 12 was further

opined sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The

accused was arrested. Pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.

PW11/C, a knife was recovered. The shirt of the victim - Pramod Jha

with which his wound was tied was handed over to the police which

was seized vide Ex.PW 1/B. Exhibits were sent to FSL. After

completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the

accused for offence under Section 302 of IPC.

4. The charge for offence under Section 302 of IPC was framed

against the appellant. He abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution in all examined 15

witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the appellant

while recording his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure wherein he denied the case of prosecution. According to

him, he did not cause injuries to Pramod Jha. In fact Vikas, son of

Pramod Jha had picked up the knife from his house and wanted to

assault him. He himself hit his father by that knife when the victim

tried to intervene. After receiving injuries, Pramod Jha fell inside the

house and Vikas ran away. The police arrived in 15-20 minutes,

removed Pramod Jha from inside their house. In support of his

defence, he examined his father Sushil Kumar Jha.

6. After meticulously examining the evidence led by the

prosecution and defence, the learned Trial Court observed that it was

appellant/accused who picked up the knife from the kitchen and

caused injuries to Pramod Jha by that knife which proved fatal.

However, it was observed that a single blow was inflicted on non-vital

part of the body and the incident had occurred when the deceased and

his son had come to the house of accused to lodge some protest as

such the act of the accused was not pre-meditated. Therefore, although

charge of murder was not proved but circumstances clearly proved

that accused had knowledge that his act is likely to cause death and as

such he was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code

and sentenced accordingly.

7. Feeling dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred by

the appellant.

8. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that in the

initial statement made by the complainant, it was alleged that the

injuries were inflicted by knife on the leg of the deceased, however,

subsequently a different version was given by alleging that a knife

blow was given on chest which escaped and hit on thigh slightly and

then again hit the thigh with greater force. It was submitted that this

statement of complainant - PW1 Vikas Jha is at variance with the

medical evidence. According to the doctor, there was only one stab

wound. Challenge was also made to the recovery of knife by alleging

that it was effected from an open place. Moreover, the injuries were

not on vital parts of the body. It was a case of sudden quarrel without

any premeditation, therefore, neither the intention nor knowledge

could be attributed to the appellant. At the most, the allegation

attracted Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. Reliance was placed on

Satpal v State, 2012 [4] JCC 2477; Kishan Pal v State, 2004[2] JCC

1149; Shan & Ors. v Emperor, AIR 1934 Lah.111; Mathew Omalt

and Anr. v State of Orissa, 1984(I) OLR 303; Asu and Anr. v State

of Rajasthan, 2000 Crl.LJ 207; Dalapati Majhi v State, 53 (1982)

CLT 106; State of Karnataka v Shivalingaiah Alias Handigidda,

AIR 1988 SC 115; Thomas v State of Kerala, 1992 Crl.LJ 581 and

Golak Chandra Nayak and another v State of Orissa and

others,1993 Crl.L.J 274. It was further submitted that prosecution has

failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond

reasonable doubt as such he is entitled to the acquitted. Alternatively,

the appellant is a young boy; he has already remained in custody for

quite some time as such he be released on the period already

undergone.

9. Rebutting the submissions made by learned Counsel for the

appellant, it was submitted by Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State that it was a clear case of intention on

the part of the accused to kill the deceased inasmuch as after the

quarrel was over and the deceased was leaving from the place, the

accused went inside the house, brought a kitchen knife and inflicted as

many as 13 injuries on his person. The testimony of complainant finds

substantial corroboration from the medical evidence as such no fault

can be found with the findings of the learned Trial Court. Reliance

was placed on Bavisetti Kameshwara Rao @ Babal vs. State of AP,

AIR 2008 SC 1854. It was further submitted that the daughter of the

deceased could not bear the loss of her father and as such within few

months she also died as such compensation under Section 357(3)

Cr.PC be also awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased. Reliance was

placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v Najab Khan and others, (2014)

SCC (Crl.) 153 and Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of

Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 2454.

10. I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective

submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record. At the outset, it may be mentioned that all the submissions

which have been made at bar for assailing the judgment passed by

learned District and Sessions Judge/North East, Delhi were also made

at the time of arguments which did not find favour and rightly so in

view of the evidence which came on record.

11. The star witness of prosecution is PW1- Vikas Jha, brother of

Rani and son of deceased Pramod Jha. This witness unfolded that his

sister Rani got married to Navin, brother of accused on 9th February,

2011. In July, 2011, her husband Navin Jha left her at her parents‟

house as she was unwell. On 05.07.2011, he along with his father

went to the house of Navin Jha to talk about his sister at about 9/9.30

pm. Accused Sachin Jha, brother of Navin opened the door and when

the witness and his father inquired from Sachin about Navin Jha, he

got angry and started abusing them. Pramod Jha asked Sachin not to

abuse them, thereupon accused Sachin physically assaulted Pramod

Jha with fists and kicks blows. Vikas Jha came to the rescue of his

father and brought him outside the house of accused. Thereafter,

accused came there holding a knife in his hand and gave a knife blow

aiming at the chest of his father. However, the knife fell on the thigh

of the victim. The accused repeatedly gave knife blows. Vikas gave a

call at 100 number. Police arrived and took the injured to GTB

hospital where his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. He further

deposed that he took off the shirt of his father and tied that shirt on his

thigh wound in an attempt to stop bleeding and this shirt was given to

the police which was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. On the

intervening night of 5/6.07.2011, his father was declared dead.

12. The presence of the accused at the spot is not disputed either by

him or by DW1, his father. It is also not in dispute that the deceased

Pramod Jha along with his son Vikas had gone to the house of

accused in order to have a talk regarding Rani who was married to

Navin Jha and was left at her parents‟ house being unwell. There is

also no dispute that Pramod Jha sustained injuries on his thigh by

knife. However, the accused has given a different version regarding

the manner in which Pramod Jha sustained injuries. It was suggested

by the accused to the witness that he had taken Rani to her parents

house at about 8 pm on the date of the incident and her further

medical examination was recommended by AIIMS for HIV; the

accused had given a call on the mobile phone of this witness

somewhere between 9.30/10 pm inquiring as to where he was and the

witness replied that he was in the house of accused and thereupon

accused reached his house; the witness along with his father started

beating the accused and when mother of Sachin tried to save her son,

at that time Pramod Jha pressed her throat and she became

unconscious; Pramod Jha pushed Sachin who fell on the ground and

the victim sat on the chest of Sachin and started pressing his neck;

thereupon deceased took out a knife from his pant and tried to give

knife blows on the person of Sachin and in that process Vikas Jha

tried to snatch the knife from the hand of his father and the knife fell

on the leg of the victim as a result of which he suffered injuries. All

these suggestions were denied by the witness. It was also suggested to

the witness that the entire incident had taken place on the first floor of

house of the accused and the victim was lying on the first floor when

police arrived and took him to hospital.

13. The father of the accused, however, tried to give a different

version by deposing that on 05.07.2011, Pramod Jha and his son

Vikas came to his house at about 9.30 pm. At that time, the appellant

- Sachin was not present in the house and he came after about 10-15

minutes. Pramod Jha slapped Sachin and a quarrel took place. Vikas

Jha took a knife from the slab of the kitchen. He intervened and in that

process knife injuries were caused on the thigh of Pramod Jha at the

hands of Vikas Jha who ran away from there. They removed the

injured to GTB Hospital. In the emergency, the doctors demanded the

blood for transfusion which could not be arranged. Due to negligence

of the doctors and non-availability of blood, Pramod Jha expired on

07.07.2011.

14. Under the circumstances, it is clear that contradictory

suggestions were given to PW1 Vikas Jha and the case set up by the

father of the accused is completely at variance with the suggestion

given to this witness. The mother of accused whose throat was

allegedly tried to be throttled by Pramod Jha and allegedly became

unconscious was not examined by the accused. Moreover, according

to accused the entire incident had taken place on the first floor and

blood was lying on the first floor. However, this stand is belied by the

scaled site plan Ex.PW12/A according to which mark-A is the place

where the accused attacked with knife on Pramod Jha i.e. in front of

L-20/62, Gali No.9, A Block, Pahari Hotel Wali Gali, Kartar Nagar,

Delhi. Moreover, the rukka Ex.PW3/A also mentions the place of

incident as "Gali No.9 near transformer, Kartar Nagar in front of

house number L-20/62, A Block, Pahari Hotel Wali Gali". There is

absolutely no evidence to show that the incident of stabbing by knife

took place on the first floor of the house as alleged by the accused or

that any blood was lying on the first floor. Under the circumstances,

the plea taken by the appellant is contradictory. On the other hand,

PW1 Vikas was subjected to gruelling cross examination by learned

counsel for the appellant, but nothing material could be elicited to

discredit his testimony and was rightly relied upon by the learned

District & Sessions Judge.

15. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that in the

initial statement, the complainant had only stated that the accused

gave a knife blow on the leg of the deceased and subsequently he

made material improvements in his deposition before the Court by

deposing that the accused inflicted knife blow on the chest of the

deceased which however missed and fell on the leg of the deceased

has been succinctly dealt with by the learned Trial Court by observing

that although it is true that in the initial statement Ex.PW1/A, the

witness had not stated regarding physical assault by blows and kicks

and aiming of knife blow on the chest of the deceased which fell on

the leg, however, his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was

recorded on the very next day which provided all the details of

assault. Moreover, the fact that the witness deposed that repeated

blows were given which did not find corroboration with the medical

evidence at the most can tantamount to an exaggeration but

exaggeration per se do not render the evidence brittle. Same are not

by themselves sufficient to discard the testimony of the witness

because it is common knowledge that while giving an account of the

incident, the witnesses have a tendency to exaggerate the version, but

then grain has to be separated from chaff in order to find out the truth

from the testimony of witnesses. (Ref. Krishna Pillai vs. State of

Kerala, AIR 1981 SC 1237; State of UP v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC

324; Ganga Bhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., 2013 (11)

SCALE 132). In the instant case, there is no reason to discard the

testimony of the witness that knife injury was caused by accused on

the thigh of the deceased. The evidence to that effect is consistent and

suffers from no infirmity for disbelieving him.

16. It was also proved that after arrest of the accused pursuant to his

disclosure statement, a knife was recovered which was lying on the

left side of the transformer. This recovery was challenged on the

ground that it was lying in an open space and was visible to

everybody. However, this suggestion has been denied by PW11-

Constable Ravinder and PW13 SI Sunil. In Tahir & Ors. v. State, 87

(2000) DLT 207, it was observed that there is nothing in Section 27 of

the Evidence Act which renders statement of accused inadmissible if

recovery of the article was made from any place which is open or

accessible to others. It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of

any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or

accessible to others it would vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of

the Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are

open or accessible to others for example, if the article is buried on the

main road side or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public

places or kept hidden in a public office the article would remain out of

the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is

discovered its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person

who had hid it alone know where it is until he discloses that fact to

any other person. Hence the crucial question is not whether the place

was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible

to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the place of

concealment is accessible to others. Similar view was reiterated in

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370; State of

Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar, (2002) 1 SCC 622; Ibrahim

Musa Chauhan @ Babu Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2013(3)

SCALE 207.

17. During the course of investigation, half sleeve shirt, blood on

gauze and the weapon of offence were sent to FSL and as per report

Ex. X of Dr. Rajinder Kumar, Asstt. Director (Biology), blood was

detected on all the exhibits. When they were further subjected to test

by the Serologist, the blood on all the three exhibits was found to be

of "human origin". However, blood group on shirt and blood gauze

was opined to be of B Group, but on the weapon of offence the

grouping could not be given due to "no reaction". This, however, does

not provide any material benefit to the accused vide Ramnaresh &

Ors. vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257.

18. Furthermore, the testimony of PW1 Vikas find corroboration

from medical evidence. Pramod Jha was initially examined by PW6

Dr. Nitin Chawla who prepared his MLC Ex.PW6/A and deposed that

patient was brought by CATS with profuse bleeding from left side

thigh. On local examination, there was stab wound measuring 3 cm x

2 cm on the antero medial aspect of the left thigh with sharp margins

and active bleeding. A call was sent to the surgery emergency and the

ICU for urgent management and proper examination. Request was

sent for urgent blood transfusion and blood sample was sent for cross

matching. The patient was referred to surgery emergency for expert

opinion and further management. The post-mortem was conducted by

PW15 - Dr. Mukesh Kumar and as per the post-mortem report

Ex.PW15/A as many as 13 injuries were found on the body of the

deceased. The cause of death was haemorrhagic shock as a result of

ante mortem injury to left femoral vessel produced by sharp edged

weapon, injury no.12 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course

of nature. The weapon of offence was also sent for obtaining

subsequent opinion and it was opined that since injury number 12 was

surgically altered, no definite opinion about the type of weapon used

could be given. However, the wound was possible with any sharp

pointed weapon, including the weapon which was produced before the

doctor. It was urged that as per death summary dated 07.07.2011, the

patient had cardiac arrest at 12.40 am on 07.07.2011 and despite

efforts he could not be revived and was declared dead at 1 am.

Therefore, if the cause of death was cardiac arrest, then injury no.12

as per the post-mortem report and described to be the cause of death

could not be accepted. This aspect of the matter was dealt with

succinctly by learned Trial Court by observing as under:

"21. A look at this death summary reveals that patient was taken to operation theatre for exploration and ligation of femoral vessel on 06.07.2011. Left femoral artery and left femoral vein were ligated. Report further records that patient developed left lower limb gangrene and he was taken up for amputation of left lower limb at around 11.30 pm on 06.07.2011 with due consent. After skin incision was given that patient developed ventricular tachy cardiac on the operation table. Surgery was abandoned and CPR was given to the patient to revive him and he was shifted to ICU and patient collapsed.

22. This death summary rather provides explanation to the contention of learned counsel that injury no.12 as per the post-mortem report is described 12 cm x 0.1 cm x muscle deep and described to be surgically altered incised wound. Death summary reveals that when this injured left leg found to have developed gangrene it was required to be amputed and skin incision was given but then victim deteriorated and could not be revived."

19. Under the circumstances, the complicity of the accused in

causing injuries to the deceased by inflicting knife blows stands

established not only from the ocular testimony of the complainant but

also from the medical evidence and the scientific evidence. All these

aspects were dealt with in detail by learned Trial Court and no fault

can be found with these findings.

20. It was next urged that even if the complicity of accused in the

said crime is accepted, even then since it was a case of sudden quarrel

without premeditation and giving a single knife blow, the offence at

best can fall under Section 324 of IPC. Reliance was placed by

learned counsel for the appellant on Satpal (supra) where the

appellant was charged with offence under Section 302 IPC. However,

his conviction was altered to one under Section 325 of IPC. In this

very case, it was observed by a Division Bench of this Court that

intention to cause a specified result or actor‟s purpose has to be

gathered and inferred from the action of the person and the

surrounding circumstances such as motive of the accused, utterances

made, nature of attack, the time and place of attack, the nature and

type of weapon used, the nature of injuries caused and so on. Thus,

other factors are to be taken into consideration to determine whether

the accused had requisite intention. Knowledge means consciousness.

The offender is reasonably expected to be aware of the consequences

of his act even if he did not intend the death. In that case, the accused

had caused injuries by stone and there was no evidence if that stone

was thrown towards victim which happened to hit him on his head or

was inflicted as blow by accused, what was the size of the stone and

what was the use of force with which that injury was caused by that

stone. Under the circumstances, it was observed that the case attracted

Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. Kishan Pal (supra) was a case

where initially names of the assailants were not disclosed to the doctor

at the time of admission of victim in the hospital. In the

supplementary statement, names of three other persons were also

added. There were contradictions regarding the place of incident. The

ocular evidence was at variance with medical evidence. Under those

circumstances, the conviction was set aside. Shan & Ors (supra) was

a case where during a sudden fight a heavy stone was picked up by the

accused and struck on the back of the head of the deceased as a result

of which he fell down and died. It was observed that he could be

imputed intention to cause grievous hurt and as such held guilty under

Section 325 of IPC. On peculiar facts of the case in Mathew Omalt

and Anr. (supra), the conviction of the appellant under Section 307

IPC was converted to 324 IPC by Orissa High Court. In Asu (supra)

injury by sword was inflicted. The conviction was altered from

Section 304 Part-I to Section 304 Part-II by Rajasthan High Court. In

Dalapati Majhi (supra); Shivalingaiah Alias Handigidda (supra);

Thomas (supra); and Krishnan Sreevalsan (supra) respective High

Courts passed orders in view of the facts and circumstances appearing

in those cases.

21. In the instant case, evidence has come on record that initially

altercation took place wherein the accused inflicted fists and kicks

blows to the victim as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, he

was brought down from the first floor of the house and while he was

in the street, the accused brought a knife from his house and caused

injuries on the left thigh of the victim. The death summary suggested

that femoral vessels and femoral veins were found cut which were

ligated, but still the injured limb developed gangrene and required to

be imputed on the next day. The gravity of the assault and the mens

rea can be inferred from these facts. In Bavisetti Kameshwara Rao @

Babal (supra), even though the screw and pan knife were used and a

plea was taken that the incident was sudden and without

premeditation, still conviction under Section 302 of IPC was upheld

by observing that even if there was a single injury caused, it was with

such a force and on such a vital part of the body that it caused almost

instantaneous death. Satish Narayan Sawant v. State of Goa, 2009

Crl.L.J 4655 was also a case where there was only one injury caused

by stabbing on the back of deceased and had proved to be fatal.

Initially the accused was unarmed and later on he had taken a kitchen

knife with the help of which he stabbed the deceased. It had also

come that only one injury was fatal in nature which was caused due to

stabbing and, therefore, it was observed that it cannot be said that

there was any intention to kill or to inflict an injury of a particular

degree of seriousness. Therefore, the offence u/s 302 was converted

to offence u/s 304 Part II of IPC.

22. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances that

single blow was inflicted and the incident had occurred when the

deceased and his son had come to the house of accused to lodge some

protest, charge of murder cannot be held to have been proved but the

circumstances clearly suggest that the accused who caused knife

injuries must have the knowledge that he was likely to cause death as

such he was rightly convicted under Section 304 Part-II of Indian

Penal Code. The findings of learned Trial Court does not call for any

interference and are accordingly upheld.

23. Coming to the quantum of sentence, it is alleged that the

appellant is a young and unmarried boy and was aged about 24 years.

He has remained in jail for more than three years hence he be released

on the period already undergone. In Najab Khan (supra), Hon‟ble

Supreme Court dealt with the principles of sentencing and observed as

under:-

"11. It is a settled principle of law that the punishment should meet the gravity of the offence committed by the accused and courts should not show undue sympathy with the accused persons. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 359, this Court held that the sentence imposed is not proportionate to the offence committed, hence not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was further observed as under:

"7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an 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."

12. This position was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254, wherein it was 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 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 meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive 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 and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate 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.

In that case, the court further goes to state that meager 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 society.

13. In Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 532, this Court reiterated the principle by stating that the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Speaking about the concept of sentencing, this Court observed thus: -

"15. 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.

16. 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."

14.. In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734, while discussing the concept of appropriate sentence, this Court expressed that:

"33.....It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice, which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored."

15. This Court, in Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand , JT 2013 (3) SC 444 held as under:

"18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence...."

Recently, the above proposition is reiterated in Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 142.

16.In view of the above, we reiterate that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based

on factual matrix. 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. We also reiterate 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 Courts 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."

24. Turning to the case in hand, a precious life has been lost on a

trivial issue however, keeping in view the mitigating circumstances

viz. his young age, coupled with the fact that no previous involvement

in any criminal incident is alleged, the substantive sentence is

modified to five (5) years rigorous imprisonment. At the same time, in

view of the guidelines given by Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji,

compensation in the sum of Rs. One lakh is awarded to the legal heirs

of the deceased, in view of S.357(3) of Cr.P.C. Appellant is granted

three months time to deposit the compensation amount with the

Registrar General of this Court who will, thereafter pay the same to

the legal heirs of deceased.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.