STATE OF M.P. v. UDAIBHAN

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dipak Misra
Shiva Kirti Singh
Judgment Date: 2016-03-01
Court Decision / Holding: The Court partly allows the appeals. It sets aside the High Court’s lenient modification and imposes three years of rigorous imprisonment on all three accused for the offences under Section 326 and 326/34 IPC, to run concurrently with any other terms. The fines and other sentences as previously maintained by the High Court remain intact. The appellants are to be taken into custody to serve out the remainder of their term as directed in connection with Sessions Case No. 16/2001.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Madhya Pradesh

Respondents

Rajaram
Udaibhan
Hakim Singh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Bansuri Swaraj
• Raghunatha Sethapathy
• C.D. Singh

Counsels for Respondents

• Dr. Pooja Jha
• Amit Kumar Ghosh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenges a High Court order that converted three convicts’ offences from Section 307 IPC (and 307/34 IPC) to Section 326 IPC (and 326/34 IPC) and reduced the corresponding sentences to the period already undergone. The trial court had convicted Rajaram, Udaibhan and Hakim Singh of serious assault following an incident at Panchayat Bhawan in which the accused used a farsa, iron rod and lathi to injure the complainant and his brother; the injuries included a grievous skull fracture. The High Court, while maintaining the substratum of the prosecution, reversed the conviction only to the lesser charge of 326 and 326/34 and drastically reduced the sentence from ten years’ RI to the period already undergone. The State contends that the High Court’s approach ignored relevant sentencing factors, the six injuries to the complainant, and the need for deterrence and justice to the injured. The Supreme Court agrees that a court must avoid undue leniency, and should consider all relevant factors, including the gravity of injuries and the weapons used. It holds that the High Court’s decision was over-lenient and interferes with the ends of justice. The Court restores a three-year rigorous imprisonment for each accused on the 326 and 326/34 counts, with concurrent running of sentences for different offences, while leaving fines untouched and directing custody to complete the remaining term.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 307 IPCSection 326 IPCSection 326/34 IPCSection 307 read with Section 34 IPCSection 323 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Duty of the sentencing court to ensure justice to both sides
Undue leniency in sentencing must be avoided
Deterrence and societal reassurance through appropriate punishment
Principle of proportionality in sentencing

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the High Court erred in converting the offences to 326/34 and in reducing the sentence; it should reflect the seriousness, the six injuries, the use of weapons and the need for deterrence, and not grant undue leniency. The High Court ignored relevant factors and misapplied sentencing principles.

Contentions of Respondents

The defense argued there was no intent to kill; the injuries, while grievous, did not warrant the higher conviction given the evidence; pleaded for leniency and recognition of the circumstances, contending that the High Court’s modification was justified.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2016] 1S.C.R.1080 A ## STATE OF M.P. v. ## UDAIBHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2016 etc.) B MARCH 01, 2016 ## [DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) - _Sentence !Sentencing_ - _Conviction of one accused_ inter alia - _u!s. 307 !PC and other tll'o accused u!s. 307/3./ !PC_ - _Sentence of_ - C _JO years RI_ - _High Court altered the conviction u!s.307 & 30713./ to one u!s.326 and 32613./ and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (i.e. one year nine 111011ths)_ - _Appeal by State_ - _Held: Ir is duty of rhe court awarding sentence to ensure jusrice to both the parties_ - _·Undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to be avoided_ - _Reducing of sentence by High Court in absence of_ - D _any mitigating circumstance, suffers from the vice of being over; lenient_ - _Sentence is altered to three years imprisonment, in place of the period already undergone_ - _Penal Code, 1860_ - _s.326 and 326134._ ## Partly allowing the appeals, the Court - E - HELD: I. It is the duty of the Court awarding sentence to - ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not re-assure the society that the offender has been - F properly dealt with. It is not a very healthy situation to leave the injured and complainant side thoroughly dissatisfied with a very lenient punishment to the accused. In the present case the order of punishment imposed by the High Court suffers from the vice of being over-lenient even in absence of any mitigating circumstance. The High Court failed to keep under focus various - G relevant factors for a proper decision on the quantum of sentence which should have been imposed even for the altered conviction under Section 326 or Section 326/34 of the IPC. The High Court did not even note down the six injuries on the complainant. [Paras 4 and 5)[1082-D, G, H; 1083-A-B) - H 1080 1081 STATE OF M.P. v. VDAIBHAN 2. The ends of justice would be satisfied by imposing on all A the three accused persons a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years in place of period already undergone, for the offence under Section 326 as well as Section 326/34 of the IPC. The other sentence which has been maintained by the High Court is left intact. However, it is clarified that sentence ofimprisonment B for different offences against the respondents shall run concurrently. [Para 6][1083-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 182of2016 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior. c Bansuri Swaraj, Raghunatha Sethapathy, C.D. Singh for the Appellant. Dr. Pooja Jha, Am Ian Kumar Ghosh for the Respondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred by State of Madhya Pradesh against common judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.92/ 2002 and 106/2002. E 2. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has partly allowed criminal appeals preferred by the three accused, namely, Rajaram, Udaibhan and Hakim Singh, respondents in these appeals so as to convert their conviction under Section 307 of!PC for Rajaram and under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the·other two appellants into one under Section 326 for Rajaram and 326/34 for the other two. The High Court did not interfere with the fine imposed on the respondents for the offence noted above as well as for the offence under Section 323 IPC but reduced the sentence for imprisonment which was R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 as well as Section 307 read with Section 34 of the !PC to a period already undergone by the respondents which was of one year and nine months only. 3. Since the High Court did not disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case and has maintained the conviction of respondents, albeit F G H 1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. - A for an offence minor to one under Section 307 or Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, the only material issue worth consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court in the matter of awarding of punishment has ignored the relevant considerations and adopted an erroneous approach. The High Court accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the accused that the evidence on record did not establish - B any intention on the part of the accused persons to kill the complainant or his brother, the two injured in this case. The High Court did not doubt nor did the accused persons raise any contention.that the injury sustained by the complainant on head was not a grievous injury. Being an incised wound on temporal region of the head, it was clearly caused by a sharp - c cutting weapon and dangerous to I ife. The doctor held the aforesaid injury no. I on the head to be grievous on the basis of X-ray which showed fracture of the skull bone. 4. The High Court in our considered opinion failed to keep under focus various relevant factors for a.proper decision on the quantum of D sentence which should have been imposed even for the altered conviction under Section 326 or Section 326/34 of the !PC. The prosecution case which has been accepted as true disclosed that the complainant Kriparam was called to Panchayat Bhawan where the accused persons were already present with weapons. Rajaram was having _farsa_ whereas Hakim was armed with an iron rod and Udaibhan with _lathi._ As soon as E the complainant arrived he was threatened and assaulted by all the three with their respective weapons. Rajaram caused a _farsa_ injury on the head, Hakim caused an injury with iron bar on the eyebrow near the right eye. Udaibhan gave more than one _lathi_ blows. When complainant's brother Prabhu came for his rescue then he was also assaulted with F _lathi_ blows by Udaibhan. 5. The High Court did not even note down the six injuries on the complainant which included a grievous injury on the temporal part, a reddish blue mark on the upper side of right eye, another injury having blue mark on the forehead and another wound on the eyebrow on the G right eye. There was hardly any mitigating circumstance to take such a lenient view as has been done by the High Court. The law on the principles governing proper sentencing has been elaborated by this Court in large number of cases. It is the duty of the Court awarding sentence to ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency in - H 1083 STATE OF M.P. v. UDAIBHAN [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not reassure the society that the offender has been properly dealt with. It is not a very healthy situation to leave the injured and complainant side thoroughly dissatisfied with a very lenient punishment to the accused. In the present case the order of punishment imposed by the High Court suffers from the vice of being over-lenient even in absence of any mitigating circumstance. 6. In such a situation, the interest of justice requires interference with the punishment imposed by the High Court. The ends of justice would be satisfied by imposing on all the three accused persons a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years in place of period already undergone, for the offence under Section 326 as well as Section 326/34 of the !PC. The other sentence which has been maintained by the High Court is left intact. However, it is clarified that sentence of imprisonment for different offences against the respondents shall run concurrently. The impugned judgment and order are modified accordingly. The Trial Court shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the respondents are taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder period of imprisonment in connection with Sessions Case No. 16/2001, tried by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh). The appeals preferred by the State are allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals partly allowed . A B c D E ... -