WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2014

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

UDHAM AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

 N.V. RAMANA, J. 

1. The present appeal is directed by the appellant­State against

the   final   order   dated   06.11.2012,   passed   by   the   High   Court   of

Madhya   Pradesh   (Gwalior   Bench)   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   659   of

2011, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the

respondents­accused herein and reduced the sentence awarded by

the   Trial   Court   to   the   period   already   undergone   for   the   offences

under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
GEETA AHUJA
Date: 2019.10.22
16:23:48 IST
Reason:

as ‘IPC’] read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 452 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution’s case is that the complainant lodged a report

1
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

on 15.04.2008 that at around 9 p.m., while he was sitting inside his

house with three other people, the respondents­accused barged in,

carrying weapons. More specifically, respondent nos. 1 and 3 were

carrying axes, while respondent nos. 2 and 4 were carrying sticks.

The   respondents­accused   asked   the   complainant   why   he   had   not

kept   his   cow   tied,   and   subsequently,   on   respondent   no.   4’s

exhortation, the respondents­accused attacked the complainant and

the others present at that time resulting in various injuries to them.

Respondents­accused   then   allegedly   threatened   the   complainant

that if he did not keep his cow confined, he would be killed.

3. The Trial Court tried the respondents­accused and ultimately

convicted them for the offences under Section 326 read with Section

34   of   IPC   as   well   as   the   offence   under   Section   452   of   IPC.   The

respondents­accused   were   sentenced   to   undergo   3   years   rigorous

imprisonment   and   a   fine   of   Rs.  250/­   (Rupees   Two   Hundred   and

Fifty Only) each for the offence under Section 326 read with Section

34   of   IPC.   They   were   further   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous

imprisonment for 1 year with a further fine of Rs. 250/­ (Rupees Two

Hundred and Fifty Only) each for the offence under Section 452 of

IPC.   In   case   of   default   of   payment   of   fine,   they   were   to   undergo

further   rigorous   imprisonment   for   6   months.   All   sentences   were

made to run concurrently by the Trial Court.

2
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

4. Being   aggrieved,   the   respondents­accused   filed   an   appeal

before   the   High   Court,   challenging   only   the   quantum   of   sentence

imposed on them by the Trial Court. Vide impugned order, the High

Court   partly   allowed   the   appeal   and   reduced   the   sentence   to   the

period   of   imprisonment   already   undergone   by   them,   which   was   a

period   of   4  days,  while   enhancing  the fine amount  imposed upon

them   by   Rs.   1500/­   (Rupees   One   Thousand   Five   Hundred   Only)

each.   The   respondents­accused   were   directed   to   deposit   the

enhanced fine within a period of 30 days, failing which they were to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. 

5. Aggrieved   by   the   impugned   order,   the   State   has   filed   the

present appeal challenging the order of the High Court reducing the

sentence awarded to the respondents­accused. The learned counsel

for the appellant­State submitted that the High Court erred in not

considering   the   gravity   of   the   offence   and   the   facts   and

circumstances   of   the   case,   particularly   the   fact   that   the

respondents­accused had undergone imprisonment of only 4 days.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents­

accused submitted that the High Court has correctly appreciated the

facts and circumstances of the case in passing the impugned order,

and therefore, the same does not merit any interference from this

3
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Court. 
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the reasoning of the

High Court, for passing the impugned order and partly allowing the

appeals   of   the   respondents­accused   herein,   is   limited   to   one

sentence.   The   High   Court   states   in   its   order   that   looking   to   the

nature   of   the   offence,   the   fact   that   this   is   the  first  offence   of  the

respondents and the period of sentence already undergone by them,

it is passing the impugned order.

9. At this stage the observations of this Court in  Accused  ‘X’ v.

State of Maharashtra,  (2019) 7 SCC 1, in which two of us were

part of the Bench, with respect to sentencing in India are relevant

here­
“49. Sentencing   is   appropriate   allocation   of   criminal
sanctions,   which   is   mostly   given   by   the   judicial
branch.   [Nicola   Padfield,   Rod   Morgan   and   Mike
Maguire,   “Out   of   Court,   Out   of   Sight?   Criminal
Sanctions   and   No   Judicial   Decision­making”, The
Oxford   Handbook   of   Criminology (5th   Edn.).]   This
process occurring at the end of a trial still has a large
impact on the efficacy of a criminal justice system. It
is   established   that   sentencing   is   a   socio­legal
process,   wherein   a   Judge   finds   an   appropriate
punishment   for   the   accused   considering   factual
circumstances   and   equities.   In   light   of   the   fact
that the legislature provided for discretion to the
Judges to give punishment, it becomes important
to   exercise   the   same   in   a   principled   manner.  We
need   to   appreciate   that   a   strict   fixed   punishment
approach in sentencing cannot be acceptable, as the
Judge needs to have sufficient discretion as well.

4
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

50. Before analysing this case, we need to address the
issue   of   the   impact   of   reasoning   in   the   sentencing
process. The reasoning of the trial court acts as a link
between the general level of sentence for the offence
committed   and   to   the   facts   and   circumstances.   The
trial   court   is   obligated   to   give   reasons   for   the
imposition of sentence, as firstly, it is a fundamental
principle   of   natural   justice   that   the   adjudicators
must provide reasons for reaching the decision and
secondly, the reasons assume more importance as
the   liberty   of   the   accused   is   subject   to   the
aforesaid   reasoning.   Further,   the   appellate   court   is
better   enabled   to   assess   the   correctness   of   the
quantum of punishment challenged, if the trial court
has justified the same with reasons...”
(emphasis supplied)

10. In the present case, it is clear that there is no detailed analysis

of   the   facts   of   the   case,   the   nature   of   the   injuries   caused,   the

weapons used, the number of victims,  etc. given by the High Court

in   the   impugned   order.   The   High   Court   while   sentencing   the

accused, has not taken into consideration the second charge proved

against the respondents­accused herein, under Section 452 of IPC.

Even   the   fact   that   the   respondents­accused   had   only   undergone

sentence   of  4   days  at  the  time of passing of the impugned order,

brings into question the High Court pointing to the same as a reason

for reducing their sentence.   As such, the order of the High Court

merits interference by this Court. 

11. We are of the opinion that a large number of cases are being

5
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

filed   before   this   Court,   due   to   insufficient   or   wrong   sentencing

undertaken by the Courts below. We have time and again cautioned

against the cavalier manner in which sentencing is dealt in certain

cases. There is no gainsaying that the aspect of sentencing should

not be taken for granted, as this part of Criminal Justice System has

determinative impact on the society. In light of the same, we are of

the opinion that we need to provide further clarity on the same.

12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of

three   tests   viz.,   crime   test,   criminal   test   and   comparative

proportionality   test.   Crime   test   involves   factors   like   extent   of

planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any),

role of the accused, anti­social or abhorrent character of the crime,

state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as

age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or

social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability

of   defense,   state   of   mind,   instigation   by   the   deceased   or   any   one

from   the   deceased   group,   adequately   represented   in   the   trial,

disagreement   by   a   judge   in   the   appeal   process,   repentance,

possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending

cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).

13. Additionally,   we   may   note   that   under   the   crime   test,

seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime

6
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

may be  ascertained  by  (i) bodily  integrity  of the victim; (ii) loss of

material   support   or   amenity;   (iii)   extent   of   humiliation;   and   (iv)

privacy breach.

14. Coming to the appropriate sentence which is to be imposed on

the   respondents­accused   in   this   case,   the   facts   of   this   case   need

closer scrutiny. The respondents­accused entered the house of the

complainant, attacked the others present with axes and with sticks.

Four people, including the complainant, were injured. The injuries

caused were incised wounds on the hands and backs of the victims,

an incised wound next to the ear of one of the victims and bruising,

etc. The respondents­accused were convicted for the offence under

Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, which carries a maximum

sentence of life imprisonment, or of imprisonment of a term which

may extend to ten years, and fine. They were also convicted under

Section   452   of   IPC,   which   carries   a   maximum   sentence   of   seven

years along with fine.

15. The respondents­accused herein were males of age 33 years, 33

years, 28 years and 70 years respectively at the time of the incident.

The main allegation as against the respondent nos. 1 and 3 is that

they had used an axe to attack the victim. In this scuffle there is no

dispute   that   some   of   the   respondents­accused   herein   were   also

7
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

injured profusely. Further the motivation seems to be that the cow

belonging to the victims had entered the household of the accused

and the respondent no. 1 with his co­accused are proved to be the

aggressor   herein.   From   the   perusal   of   the   record,   the   injuries   on

some of the victims are not specifically attributed. The respondent

group was numerically matched with that of the victims and there

were two respondents­accused within the group carrying lathis. The

bodily integrity was compromised as a result of the injury caused,

but   there   was   no   evidence   led   to   indicate   any   permanent

embellishments of any part. The scope of intrusion of privacy due to

the   assault   is   also   minimal.   There   was   no   material   destruction

involved in the crime.

16. In   this   context,   we   need   to   note   that   the   facts   of   the   case

highlighted above, however, need to be balanced with the fact that

this was the first offence committed by the respondents­accused and

that the motive, which is stated to be trivial. There is a requirement

to   treat   the   crime   committed   herein   differently   than   other

objectionable   situations   such   as   police   atrocities   etc.   [refer   to

Yashwant   v.   State   of   Maharashtra,  AIR  2018 SC   4067] Having

regard   to   the   fact  that   the  occurrence   of  the  crime  is   of  the   year

2008   and   the  respondents­accused  have   been,   in   a   way,   only

ordered to undergo four days of jail term with a fine of Rs. 1,500/­,
8
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

we need to enhance the same to commensurate with the guilt of the

respondents­accused.

17. Comparatively,   having   perused   certain   precedents   of   this

Court, we are of the considered opinion and accordingly direct that

for the commission of the offence under Section 326 of IPC read with

Section 34 of IPC, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to

serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.

75,000/­ (Rupees Seventy­Five Thousand Only) each within a period

of 1 month, on default of payment of which they are to suffer simple

imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence under Section 452 of

IPC, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to serve rigorous

imprisonment   for   3   months   and   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.   25,000/­

(Rupees   Twenty­Five   Thousand   Only)   each   within   a   period   of   1

month,   on   default   of   payment   of   which   they   are   to   suffer   simple

imprisonment for 3 months. 

18. For the offence under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34

of IPC, the respondent no. 4, who is presently aged around 80 years,

is   sentenced   to  serve   rigorous  imprisonment  for  2 months and  to

pay   a   fine   of   Rs.50,000/­   (Rupees   Fifty   Thousand   Only)   within   a

period of 1 month, on default of payment of which he is to suffer

simple imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence under Section 452

9
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

of   IPC,   respondent   no.   4   is   sentenced   to   serve   rigorous

imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/­ (Rupees

Fifteen  Thousand   Only)  within a period of 1 month, on default of

payment of which he is to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month. 

19. The   above   sentences   are   to   run   concurrently.   Further,   the

respondents are directed to be taken into custody forthwith, to serve

out their remaining sentence, as imposed hereinabove. 

20. Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   partly   allowed   and   the   impugned

order of the High Court is modified in the afore­stated terms.

..............................................J.
(N.V. RAMANA)

 ..............................................J.
 (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

..............................................J.
 (AJAY RASTOGI)

NEW DELHI;
October 22, 2019.

10