Case: Ram Chander Rai &amp; Others Vs. State of Bihar

reference by the Sessions Judge the High Court enhanced it to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The grave and sudden provocation in that case was not construed to have the same effect as in the case of a man who strikes a severe blow under sudden and provoked anger. In the latter case also the accused had been convicted for cutting off his wifes nose and sentenced by the Trial Court to rigorous imprisonment for nine months. On appeal after notice for enhancement the sentence was enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. In the judgment there is also a reference to an unreported decision of the year 1928 in which sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment was enhanced to two years on the authority of Queen Empress v. Abdul Rahiman (ILR 16 Bom 580) and of the decision in Bhagwan Chhagans case (supra). In still another unreported decision of 1927 also referred in Ismail Umars case (supra) sentence of one months rigorous imprisonment was enhanced by the Bombay High Court to one years rigorous imprisonment. Let us now examine the decision of the Bombay High Court in Abdul Rahimans case (supra). We find that the accused in that case had deliberately cut off his wifes nose with a pen knife. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment which was the maximum sentence he could impose. The person convicted under Section 326, I.P.C., could then be sentenced to transportation for life or imprisonment for ten year. The Government applied for enhancement of sentence. The High Court observed that in a case of such gravity the learned Magistrate would have exercised a proper discretion if he had sent the prisoner for trial by the High Court. Considering the sentence to be inadequate the convocation and sentence of the accused was quashed and the Magistrate was directed to commit the prisoner for trail by the High Court. The prisoner was subsequently brought up for trial before a Judge of the Bombay High Court and a common jury and on conviction was sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment. In the case of Sikender v. Emperor, (AIR 1915 Lah 395) which was also cited at the bar, the accused was convicted under Section 326 I.P.C., for cutting off his wifes nose and was sentenced by the District Magistrate to rigorous imprisonment for four years. On appeal the Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence to two years. The Punjab High Court enhanced the sentence to four years rigorous imprisonment observing that leniency in such cases was ordinarily speaking out of place.6. The question of sentence is always one of judicial discretion but the proper exercise of direction in this respect is generally a matter of difficulty. The sentence should neither be to lenient nor disproportionately severe. The former loses its deterrent effect and the latter has a tendency to tempt the offender to commit a more serious offence, if there is an opportunity to do so. The object of punishment for crimes being to impress on the guilty party and other like-minded persons that the life of crime does not pay, so that the purpose of promoting the cause of orderly and civilized society is advanced, the Court has in awarding the sentence a duty to guard itself against the aforesaid two tendencies and to draw a proper balance between them. In order to do so the Court has to consider the nature an gravity of the offence and duly take into account all the relevant circumstance leading to its commission. The difficulty in the right determination of sentence was also noticed by this Court in Adamji Umar Dalal v. State of Bombay, ((1952) 2 SCR 172 : AIR 1952 Sc 14 : 1952 SCJ 820 : 1953 Cri LJ 542) where it was added that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this respect, it being a matter of discretion in each to be guided by variety of circumstances. In this decision the courts were remained to bear in mind the necessity of proportion between an offence and the penalty. It was further observed that it is not the practice of this Court to interfere by special leave in the matter of punishment imposed for crime committed save in exceptional cases where the sentences are unduly harsh and do not advance the ends of justice. That, the question of sentence is normally a matter of discretion, was again reiterated by this Court in Kapur Chand Pokhraj v. State of Bombay, (AIR 1958 SC 993 : (1959 SCR 250 : (1958) Cri LJ 1558) in which two earlier decisions of this Court making similar observations were also noticed.7. In the present case revenge for an occurrence which took place about 18 years ago appears to be the impelling motive for the crime. It is true that in the earlier occurrence Naumi Rais, face had been permanently disfigured and it was perhaps not easy for his relations to completely forget the disgrace caused by Naumi Rais nose having been cut off. When his sons grew up absence of nose on their fathers face as a result of injury inflicted on the earlier occasion seems to have served as a constant incitement for them to take venge. Their elders in the family instead of exercising a restraining influence apparently instigated them and in fact jointed them in their plan to take revenge. But this provocation, however strong the sentimental urge for is, could by no means be considered to be either sudden or grave for the propose of serving in the eye of law a strong mitigating circumstance. The cowardly act for inflicting the grave injury, as the medical evidence shows, is, in out opinion, inexcusable, though permanent disfigurement of Naumi Rais face which could not be concealed from the public must be assumed to have served as a source of constant irritation for the accused persons. This factor thus cannot be completely ignored while determining the sentence.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]4. It is the number and nature of injuries which seems to account for separate convictions. But in these appeals which are limited to the question of sentence only we are concerned with the merits of theseus now examine the decision of the Bombay High Court in Abdul Rahimans case (supra). We find that the accused in that case had deliberately cut off his wifes nose with a pen knife. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment which was the maximum sentence he could impose. The person convicted under Section 326, I.P.C., could then be sentenced to transportation for life or imprisonment for ten year. The Government applied for enhancement of sentence. The High Court observed that in a case of such gravity the learned Magistrate would have exercised a proper discretion if he had sent the prisoner for trial by the High Court. Considering the sentence to be inadequate the convocation and sentence of the accused was quashed and the Magistrate was directed to commit the prisoner for trail by the High Court. The prisoner was subsequently brought up for trial before a Judge of the Bombay High Court and a common jury and on conviction was sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment.The question of sentence is always one of judicial discretion but the proper exercise of direction in this respect is generally a matter of difficulty. The sentence should neither be to lenient nor disproportionately severe. The former loses its deterrent effect and the latter has a tendency to tempt the offender to commit a more serious offence, if there is an opportunity to do so. The object of punishment for crimes being to impress on the guilty party and otherpersons that the life of crime does not pay, so that the purpose of promoting the cause of orderly and civilized society is advanced, the Court has in awarding the sentence a duty to guard itself against the aforesaid two tendencies and to draw a proper balance between them. In order to do so the Court has to consider the nature an gravity of the offence and duly take into account all the relevant circumstance leading to its commission. The difficulty in the right determination of sentence was also noticed by this Court in Adamji Umar Dalal v. State of Bombay, ((1952) 2 SCR 172 : AIR 1952 Sc 14   : 1952 SCJ 820 : 1953 Cri LJ 542) where it was added that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this respect, it being a matter of discretion in each to be guided by variety of circumstances. In this decision the courts were remained to bear in mind the necessity of proportion between an offence and the penalty. It was further observed that it is not the practice of this Court to interfere by special leave in the matter of punishment imposed for crime committed save in exceptional cases where the sentences are unduly harsh and do not advance the ends of justice. That, the question of sentence is normally a matter of discretion, was again reiterated by this Court in Kapur Chand Pokhraj v. State of Bombay, (AIR 1958 SC 993   : (1959 SCR 250   : (1958) Cri LJ 1558) in which two earlier decisions of this Court making similar observations were also noticed.7. In the present case revenge for an occurrence which took place about 18 years ago appears to be the impelling motive for the crime. It is true that in the earlier occurrence Naumi Rais, face had been permanently disfigured and it was perhaps not easy for his relations to completely forget the disgrace caused by Naumi Rais nose having been cut off. When his sons grew up absence of nose on their fathers face as a result of injury inflicted on the earlier occasion seems to have served as a constant incitement for them to take venge. Their elders in the family instead of exercising a restraining influence apparently instigated them and in fact jointed them in their plan to take revenge. But this provocation, however strong the sentimental urge for is, could by no means be considered to be either sudden or grave for the propose of serving in the eye of law a strong mitigating circumstance. The cowardly act for inflicting the grave injury, as the medical evidence shows, is, in out opinion, inexcusable, though permanent disfigurement of Naumi Rais face which could not be concealed from the public must be assumed to have served as a source of constant irritation for the accused persons. This factor thus cannot be completely ignored while determining the sentence.