Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 1241 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 21, 2015



                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                      CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION



                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1241  OF 2015
                (Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 95/2014)

Jasbir Singh                                                 … Appellant (s)


                                   Versus

Tara Singh and others                                       … Respondent (s)


                               J U D G M E N T


KURIAN, J.:


Leave granted.


The de facto complainant has come up in  appeal  aggrieved  by  the  alleged
lenient view taken by the High Court in the impugned  judgment  with  regard
to the sentence.

The party-respondents were tried under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B  of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to  as  ‘IPC’)  for
having committed a serious offence of forgery of documents in order to  grab
the property of one Harbans Singh. The trial  court  imposed  the  following
sentence:

“Name of   Section    R.I.  Fine (Rs.)      In Default
Accused

Partapa         466 IPC       2 years      500/-    One month

Tara Singh   466/120-B   1 year       500/-    One month

                   467 IPC       3 years    1000/-   Two months

                 468   IPC         3   years      1000/-       Two    months


               471 IPC     2 years     500/-   One months

Bhajan Singh 467 IPC     3 years   1000/-     Two months

                 468 IPC     3 years   1000/-     Two months

Charan Dass  467 IPC     3 years   1000/-     Two months

                468 IPC      3 years   1000/-  Two months

Dalbir Singh    467 IPC      3 years   1000/-    Two months

             468 IPC       3 years   1000/-     Two months”



The appeal by the party-respondents was dismissed. In Revision,  it  appears
the challenge was limited only to the quantum of sentence. As  a  matter  of
fact, notice issued by this Court is limited to the question of  quantum  of
sentence only. The party-respondents mainly  contended  on  prolonged  trial
and their advanced age. To quote the relevant submissions:

“… Learned counsel for the petitioners contends  that  the  petitioners  are
facing agony of trial since registration of the FIR i.e. 25.6.1996 and  they
are in the age group of 45 to 58. Learned counsel further contends that  the
petitions are first offenders, they are neither previous  convicts  nor  are
having any criminal background. Learned counsel prays that keeping  in  view
the age of the  petitioners  and  also  the  fact  that  they  have  already
suffered a lot of mental agony as they are facing trial  since  1996,  their
sentence, therefore, be reduced to the period already undergone by them. …”



The High Court passed the following order:

“Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the  parties  and  have
also gone through the contents of the FIR.

  Keeping  in  view  the  submissions  made  by  learned  counsel  for   the
petitioners that the petitioners are first offenders and are not having  any
criminal background and are facing agony of trial since registration of  FIR
i.e. 25.6.1996, the  present  petition  is  partly  allowed.  The  judgments
passed by Courts below  qua  conviction  are  upheld  and  sentence  of  the
petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them.”







The actual period undergone by  the  party-respondents  is  as  follows,  as
noted in the impugned judgment:



“As  per  the  custody  certificate  issued  by  Jail  Authorities,  as   on
24.05.2013,  the   custody   period/actual   period   undergone   (excluding
remission) of the respondents is:

Tara Singh  -    4 months 26 days,

Bhajan Singh     -     5 months 24 days,

Charan Dass -    5 months 26 days,

Dalbir Singh     -     5 months 24 days.”



Learned Counsel for the party-respondents submits that they  have  undergone
a few more days incarceration in the jail.



The appellant submits that the offences being  grave  in  nature,  the  High
Court should not have let them go lightly.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the party-respondents as well.

The prescribed maximum punishment for offence under Section 466  of  IPC  is
seven years and fine; under Section 467 of IPC, it is imprisonment for  life
or imprisonment for ten years and fine; under Section  468  of  IPC,  it  is
seven years and fine and under Section 471 of IPC, it is two years  or  with
fine or both.  The trial court, having regard to the very  same  submissions
made before the High Court, passed the  sentence  which  we  have  extracted
above.



Though it is not possible for this court to lay down  strict  principles  on
sentencing in the absence of a sentencing  policy  for  the  State,  certain
indicators need to be born in  mind  by  the  Courts.  The  gravity  of  the
offence, the  mitigating  factors  and  circumstances  like  parties  buying
peace,  parties  settling  the  disputes  and  getting  reconciled,   victim
subsequently becoming  part  of  the  family,  victim  showing  interest  in
getting monetarily compensated, etc.,  the  motive  for  commission  of  the
crime, the manner in which it was  planned  and  committed,  the  prescribed
punishment and the social abhorrence of the offences are but a few of  them.
These factors would help the court to discern and decipher  the  appropriate
purpose of punishment and to enter a  satisfaction  that  justice  has  been
done. Unless there are mitigating circumstances which  were  omitted  to  be
noted by the  trial  court,  the  appellate/revisional  court  will  not  be
justified in arbitrarily reducing the sentence awarded by the  trial  court.
And in any case, when the appellate/revisional court reduces  the  sentence,
the factors leading to such reduction should be reflected in the order.



In this context, it would also be profitable to refer to Jameel v. State  of
Uttar Pradesh[1], wherethis Court held that the  punishment  should  reflect
the society’s cry for justice against the criminals. To quote:

“14. The general policy which  the  courts  have  followed  with  regard  to
sentencing is that the punishment must be appropriate  and  proportional  to
the gravity of the offence committed. Imposition of  appropriate  punishment
is the manner in which the courts respond to the society’s cry  for  justice
against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose  punishment
befitting the crime so that the courts  reflect  public  abhorrence  of  the
crime.”





In the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed and impugned  judgment  is
set aside. The  matter  is  remitted  to  the  High  Court  for  passing  an
appropriate   order    in    the    case    in    accordance    with    law.


                                                            ....…….…..…………J.
                                                             (KURIAN JOSEPH)

                                                      ….................……J.
                                                               (ARUN MISHRA)
New Delhi;
September 21, 2015.
-----------------------
[1]

       (2010) 12 SCC 532

-----------------------
                                                                  REPORTABLE


-----------------------
6