Jasvir Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Aftab Alam
Ranjana Prakash Desai
Judgment Date: 2012-11-26
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The Supreme Court reduced the appellant Jasvir Kaur’s sentence from two years to one year of imprisonment, while leaving the Rs. 2,000 fine intact and maintaining other aspects of the conviction. The appeal was allowed to the limited extent of sentencing modification.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jasvir Kaur

Respondents

State of Punjab

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• J. P. Dhanda
• Abhijeet Sah

Counsels for Respondents

• V. Madhurkar
• AAG
• S. Mathur

Case Synopsis & Summary

The case arises from a criminal appeal by Jasvir Kaur against a conviction for cheating under Section 420 IPC, along with her husband Ginder Singh, a Head Constable in the Punjab Police, for taking Rs 70,000 from the informant Angrej Singh by promising police employment. The informant paid Rs 50,000 at the husband’s quarter in the presence of Jasvir Kaur, who counted the amount; later they sought the balance Rs 20,000. No employment was provided and the money was not refunded. The Judicial Magistrate convicted both; the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and the High Court confirmed the same. The Supreme Court, granting leave on the sentencing issue, held that although both were convicted of the same offence, the punishment need not be identical given their roles. The court found that the husband had the primary role, while Jasvir Kaur had a subsidiary role and also noted her gender as a factor for consideration. Accordingly, the Court modified the appellant’s sentence from two years to one year imprisonment, while leaving the fine of Rs. 2,000 intact. The decision cites Hirala Lal Mallick v. State of Bihar to underscore the necessity of calibrated sentencing in light of factual circumstances and role distribution in offences of cheating.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 420 IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sentencing is a delicate and difficult task requiring mindful calibration of punishment with respect to facts and circumstances.
The relative role of each accused in the commission of the offence is relevant to sentencing.
Absence of comprehensive sentencing guidelines necessitates judicial application of mind to tailor punishment to the ends of justice.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that while both she and her husband were convicted for the same offence, she had only a subsidiary role in the cheating and, being a woman, deserves a lesser punishment. She seeks a reduction to a one-year imprisonment to reflect the ends of justice and the relative role played. The absence of uniform sentencing guidelines necessitates a more nuanced approach that recognizes the differences in participation and personal circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends for upholding the conviction and the sentence. It argues that both accused were convicted of the same offence and should face proportionate punishment; the court should not vicariate gender or role as a sole basis for reducing the sentence without compelling reasons, and the existing two-year term with fine should stand unless clearly unwarranted.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hira Lal Mallick v. State of Bihar	(1977) 4 SCC 44	Positive	Cited to illustrate the need for careful calibration of punishment based on role and circumstances, supporting the Court's approach to sentencing in the present case.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1057 ## JASVIR KAUR _v._ STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1961 of 2012) ## NOVEMBER 26, 2012 B ## **[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]** _Sentence I Sentencing_ - _Offence of cheating_ - _Appellant's husband was Head Constable in the Punjab Police_ - _Allegation that appellant and her husband extracted money_ c _from the informant by making false promise that_ a _job would be arranged for him in the Police_ - _Both the accused, the appellant and her husband were found guilty of cheating by the courts below uls.420 /PC and both were given the same_ - _punishment, i.e. imprisonment for two years Notice issued_ 0 _by Supreme Court on the question of sentence in the case_ - _of appellant Held: Though, both appellant and her husband were convicted for the same offence, it does not necessarily follow that they should be punished in the same way_ - _The courts below overlooked their relative role in the commission_ E - _of the offence From the prosecution case and the evidence of witnesses it is evident that the primary role in the commission of the offence was of the appellant's husband, and the appellant had only_ a _subsidiary role_ - _It also needs to be kept in mind that she is_ a _woman_ - _In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellant deserves_ a _lesser punishment than the_ F - _other accused, her husband Sentence of one year imprisonment to the appellant would meet the ends of justice_ - _Penal Code, 1860_ - s. _420_ - _Administration of criminal justice._ _Hira/al Mallick v. State of Bihar,_ **(1977) 4 SCC 44** - G **referred to.** ## **Case Law Reference:** **(1977) 4 sec 44 referred to Para 7** 1057 H 1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1961 of 2012. 8 From the Judgment & Order dated 28.11.2011 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 2576 of 2011. J.P. Dhanda, Abhijeet Sah for the Appellant. V. Madhurkar, AAG, S. Mathur (for Kuldip Singh) for the Respondent. c The following Order of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** ## 1. Leave granted. D E 2. The appellant along with her husband has been convicted under Section 420 of the Penal Code and both of them are sentenced to imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with the default sentence of 15 days' imprisonment. 3. The special leave petition giving rise to the present appeal was filed both by the present appellant as petitioner No.1 and her husband - Ginder Singh as petitioner No.2. The special leave petition at the instance of the husband was F dismissed and in case of the appellant, notice was issued only on the question of sentence. We, accordingly, proceed to consider the appeal to that limited extent. 4. According to the prosecution case Ginder Singh who was a Head Constable in the Punjab Police extracted G Rs.70,000/- from the informantAngrej Singh by making the false promise that he would arrange for a job for him in the Police. The deal was struck at Rs.1,40,000/-; half of which, i.e., Rs.70,000/- was to be paid in advance and the balance half, after the employment was made. It is further the prosecution H JASVIR KAUR _v._ STATE OF PUNJAB 1059 case that on September 22, 2002, the informant paid A Rs.50,000/- to Ginder Singh at his quarter in the presence of his wife. Ginder Singh took the money and handed it over to his wife, the present appellant, who counted it before the informant. A few days later both the accused came to the house of the informant to collect the balance amount of B Rs.20,000/-. Needless to say that neither any employment was provided to the informant nor was the money refunded to him. 5. Both the accused were tried by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridkot, who, by his judgment and order dated March 29, 2010, passed in Criminal Case No.543 dated 14-10-2005 (arising out of FIR No.22 dated June 2, 2004), convicted and sentenced the accused, as noted above. C 6. Their appeal (Criminal Appeal No.75 of 14.10.2005) was dismissed by the judgment and order dated September 30, 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot and their revision [(Criminal Revision No.2576 of 2011) (O&M)] was similarly rejected by the High Court without any modification in the conviction or sentence vide judgment dated November 28, 2011. D E 7. Coming now to the issue of punishment, sentencing of the convicted accused which is at the heart of the administration of criminal justice is both a delicate and difficult task. In _Hirata/ Mallick v. State of Bihar[1 ]_ Krishna Iyer, J. quoted the English Judge Henry McCardie as saying "Trying a man is easy, as easy as falling off a log, compared with deciding what to do with him when he has been found guilty''. Unfortunately, however, the question of sentencing does not receive due importance and the requisite application of mind by the courts. In our country, there is very little legislative, judicial or any other kind of guidance available to meaningfully deal with the question of sentencing. The absence of any guidelines makes the task of the court more difficult and casts a heavy responsibility on it to F G H 1. (1977) 4 sec 44. [2012] 9 S.C.R. ## 1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - A calibrate the due punishment that might be awarded to a convict, taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances. It is, however, regrettable that the courts hardly give the question of sentencing as much attention and application of mind as it deserves. The present is a case in - 8 point. As seen above, both the accused, the wife and the husband have been found guilty of cheating and both of them have been given the same punishment, i.e., imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Though, both the accused, the wife and the husband are convicted for the same offence, - c it does not necessarily follow that they should be punished in the same way. What seems to have been overlooked is their relative role in the commission of the offence. 8. From the prosecution case and the evidence of witnesses it is evident that the primary role in the commission D of the offence was of Ginder Singh, the husband, and the wife (the present appellant) had only a subsidiary role. It also needs to be kept in mind that she is a woman. In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellant deserves a lesser punishment than the other accused, her husband who played the main role in the E commission of the offence. 9. In light of the discussion made above, we are of the view that a sentence of one year imprisonment to the appellant would meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly, modify and reduce F her sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year leaving the fine undisturbed. 10. The appeal is allowed to the limited extent, indicated above. G 8.8.B. Appeal Partly allowed.