RAJ BALA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 113, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
-
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 113 
RAJ BALA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. ETC. ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1049-1050 OF 2015 etc.) 
AUGUST 18, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Sentence/Sentencing - Principle of proportionality 
between crime and punishment-Prosecution uls.306 /PC- c 
Trial court found the accused guilty of offence u/s.306 and 
sentenced them for 3 years RI with a fine of Rs. 3, 0001- with 
default clause - High Court, in the appeal of the accused, 
confirmed their conviction, but reduced 10..eir sentence to the 
period already undergone (4 months 20 days) - Appeal D 
challenging the reduction of sentence - Held: A court while 
imposing sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective 
cry of the society and has to exercise its discretion to impose 
punishment on reasonable and rational parameters in 
accordance with the concept of rule of law- The punishment E 
for the offence uls. 306 /PC is 10 years- Once the offence is 
proved, there should have been adequate and appropriate 
punishment - The sentence imposed by trial court as well 
as the High Court are inadequate - The sentence imposed 
by trial court cannot be changed in absence of any appeal F 
thereagainst - The sentence imposed by High Court is set 
aside - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 306. 
Allowing the appeal, whereby the order of High 
Court redu(!ing the sentence of the accused was G 
challenged, the Court 
HELD: 1. A Court, while imposing sentence, has a 
duty to respond to the collective cry of
the society. The 
legislature in its wisdom has conferred discretion on the H 
113
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A Court but the duty of the court in such a situation 
becomes more difficult and complex. It has to exercise 
the discretion on reasonable and rational parameters. 
The discretion cannot be allowed to yield to fancy ·or 
notion. A Judge has to keep in mind the paramount 
B concept of rule of law and the conscience of the 
collective and balance it with the principle of 
proportionality, but when the discretion is exercised in 
.a capricious manner, i~ tantamounts to relinquishment 
of duty and reckless abandonment of responsibility. One 
C cannot remain a total alien to the demand of the socio-
cultural milieu, regard being had to the command of law 
and also brush aside the agony of the victim or the 
survivors of the victim, Society waits with patience to 
0 
see that justice is done. There is a hope on the part of 
the society and when the criminal culpability is 
established and the discretion is irrationally exercised 
by the court, the said hope is shattered and the patience 
is wrecked. It is the duty of the court not to exercise the 
E discretion in such a manner as a consequence of which 
the expectation inherent in patience, which is the "finest 
part of fortitude" is destroyed. A Judge should never feel 
thatthe individuals who constitute the society as a whole 
· is imperceptible to the exercise of discretion. He should 
F always bear in mind that erroneous and fallacious 
exercise of discretion is perceived by a
visible collective. 
[Para 11) [124-D-H; 125-A-B] 
Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand (2013) 7 SCC 545; 
G 
Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat 
2006 (1) 
SCR 477: (2006) 2 SCC 359; State of M.P V: Babu Lal 
(2014) 9 SC~ 281; State of M.P v. Surendra Singh 
(2015) 1 SCC 222; State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh 2015 
(1) SCR 709: (2015) 3 sec 441 - relied on. 
H 
2. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide 
..
RAJ BALA v. STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. 
115 
and further stipulates that whoever abets in the crime A 
would be punished with imprisonment for either 
description for a term which may extend to ten years and 
shall also be liable to fine. Once the offence under 
Section 306 IPC is proved, there should have been 
adequate and appropriate punishment. [Para 11] [123-
B 
F; 124-B] 
3. The trial Judge, while imposing punishment, has 
applied the test that the accused persons are first 
offenders and belong to weaker section of the society. C 
Another mitigating· fact that has been recorded is that 
daughter of one of the accused was teased. The trial 
Judge has, on the basis of the appreciation of the 
evidence on record, came to· the conclusion that the 
deceased was assaulted and being apprehensive of D 
further torture, he committed suicide. The mitigating 
factors which have been highlighted by the trial Judge 
are absolutely non-mitigating factors and, in a way, 
totally inconsequential for imposing a sentence of three 
years. The approach of the High Court reflects more of E 
a casual and fanciful one rather than just one. [Para 11] 
[123-G-H; 124-A, B-D] 
4. The sentence of 3 years imposed by the trial 
Judge, though inadequate, it cannot be changed in the F 
absence of any appeal either by the State or the persons 
aggrieved challenging the quantum of sentence. The 
reduction of sentence by the High Court to the period 
already undergone is set aside and the sentence 
imposed
by the trial Judge is restored. [Paras 13 and 12] G 
[125-C, D-E] 
(2013) 1 sec 545 
2006 (1) SCR 477 
Case Law Reference 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 1 
Para 2 
H
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 
A (2014) 9 sec 2s1 
(2015) 1 sec 222 
2015 (1) SCR 709 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 3 
Para 3 
Para 3 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
B Appeal Nos. 1049-1050 of 2015 
c 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27 .01.2015 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal 
Revision No. 1460 of2004 
Siddharth Mittal, Surender Singh, Usha Nandini V. for the 
Appellant. 
Alok Sangwan, AAG, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Manju Jetley, 
V. Madhukar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In Gopal Singh v. State of 
Uttrakahanc:J1, while focusing on the gravity of the crime and 
E the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the 
F 
G 
Court had observed:-
"Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While 
the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, 
simultaneously the principle of proportionality between 
the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed 
aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of 
sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment 
should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept 
of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the 
Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. · 
In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents 
of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the 
convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his 
H 
1
(2013) 1 sec 545
RAJ BALA v. STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent 
milieu, the effect- propensity to become a social threat 
or n·uisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the 
commission of the crime and his conduct in the 
interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, 
the relationship between the parties an·d attractability of 
the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based 
social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless 
to emphasise, these are certain illustrative a?pects put 
forth in a condensed manner. We may hasten to add that 
there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable 
theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent 
on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial 
discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge 
nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical 
apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For 
everv offence. a drastic measure cannot be thought of. 
Similarly. an offender cannot be allowed to be treated 
with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in 
a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances 
in which the crime has been committed and other 
concomitant factors which we have indicated 
hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of 
pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the 
117 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not 
F 
be in the realm of fancy. It should
be embedded in the 
conceptual essence of just punishment." 
[Emphasis added] 
2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. 
G 
State.ofGujaraf, it has been held that:-
"7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting 
claims and demands. Security of persons and property 
of the people is an essential function of the State. It could 
2 c2006) 2 sec 359 
H
118 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. 
Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living 
law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts 
are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the 
challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would 
undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of 
society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the 
object of law which must be achieved by imposing 
appropriat~ sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone 
of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges 
confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing 
Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to 
be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of social 
consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the 
sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective 
machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft 
modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should 
be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. 
The facts and given circumstances in each case, the 
nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned 
and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, 
the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used 
and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts 
which would enter into the area of consideration. 
8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate 
sentence would do more harm to the justice
system to 
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, 
and society could not long endure under such serious 
threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award 
proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence 
and the manner in which it was executed or committed, 
etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court 
in Sevaka Perumalv. State of T.N. 3" 
[Emphasis supplied] 
3 (1991) 3 sec 471
RAJ BALA v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
119 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
And again:-
A 
"The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate 
punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been 
committed not only against the individual victim but also 
against the society to which the criminal and the victim 
B 
belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must 
not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent 
with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has 
been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting 
public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's 
C 
cry for justice against the criminal"." 
3. It needs no special emphasis to state that prior to the 
said decision, there are series of judgments of this Court 
emphasizing on appropriate sentencing. Despite authorities o 
existing and governing the field, it has come to the notice of 
this Court that sometimes the court of first instance as well as 
the appellate court which includes the High Court, either on 
individual notion or misplaced sympathy or personal 
perception seems to have been carried away by passion of E 
mercy, being.totally oblivious of lawful obligation to the collective 
as mandated by law and forgetting the oft-quoted saying of 
Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo "Justice, though due to the 
accused, is due to the accuser too" and follow.an extremely 
liberal sentencing policy which has neither legal permissibility 
F 
nor social acceptability. 
4. We have commenced the
judgment with the aforesa:d 
pronouncements, and our anguished observations, for the 
present case, in essentiality, depicts an exercise of judicial G 
discretion to be completely moving away from the objective 
parameters of law which clearly postulate that the prime 
objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just 
and proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the 
gravity, nature ofthe crime and manner in which the offence is 
H
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A committed keeping in mind the social interest and the 
conscience of the society, as has been laid down in State of 
M.P. v. Babu La/4, State of M.P. v. Surendra Singh5 and 
State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh6 . 
B 
5. We sadly and indubitably with a pang proceed to pen 
the narrative. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 stood trial for the 
offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Be it noted, initially 
the FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC but during 
investigation, the investigating agency had converted the 
C offence to one under Section 306 IPC. The charge was framed 
in respect of the offence under Section 306 IPC and the plea 
of the accused persons was one of complete denial. The 
allegations against the accused persons were that on 
23.10.2000, when ASI Daya Nand along with other police 
D officials were patrolling at Qumaspur, informant Dharam Singh 
met him and stated that he is a resident of Village Qumaspur 
and working cis Peon in the office of the Public Works 
Department (B&R), Sub Division No.4, Engineering College, 
Murtha! and on that day about 1.00 p.m., Joginder, son of 
E Dariyao Singh had informed the informant on telephone that 
his eldest son Krishan Kumar, aged 19 years, had died. After 
receipt of the information, the informant along with JE Sushi! 
Kumar, JE Nafe Singh and SOC Ramesh Kumar went to his 
F house at village Qumaspur where he found his son was lying 
dead on a cot. On queries made about death
of his son, lshwar 
Singh S/o. Hari Chand, Chet Ram s/o. Mir Singh, Shanti w/o 
· Karan Singh and Ganga Die w/o. Mir Singh told the informant 
that on the same day at about 12.30 p.m., accused Satbir, 
G Rajesh and Mukesh first gave severe beatings to his son and 
after that they brought him to his house and hanged him and 
thereafter left for their respective homes. It was also stated by 
the informant that Dariya s/o. Lakhi, Sandeep s/o. Rajender 
• (2014) s sec 2a1 
H 
5 (2015) 1 sec 222 
6 (2015)3 SCC441
RAJ BALA v. STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. 
121 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
Singh and Rinku s/o. Bijender after tearing the rope removed A 
the deceased Krishan from the hand and put him on the cot. 
On the basis of the statement of the informant, the criminal law 
was set in motion and investigation commenced. After 
completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed under 
Section 306 IPC before the competent court which in turn 
B 
committed the matter to the Court of Session. 
6. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 
as many as 16 witnesses. The learned trial Judge on the basis 
of the material brought on record found the accused persons C 
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. It is 
pertinent to state here that the learned trial Judge posed the 
question whether the deceased committed suicide by hanging 
himself with a rope or the accused persons hanged him to the 
rope which resulted in his death. He took note of the fact that D 
initially the case was registered under Section 302 IPC but 
during investigation the police had found that the deceased 
had teased one Seema, daughter of the accused Satbir, and 
that is why he was assaulted at the spot and thereafter they 
brought him to his house. The trial court found that there was E 
evidence on record that Seema was teased by the deceased 
while she was in her house and at that time she has raised an 
alarm which attracted the attention of the other witnesses and 
due to the said incident he was
assaulted, and he eventually F 
committed suicide. The trial court has recorded a finding that 
on being injured there was apprehension in the mind of the 
deceased of further maltreatment and harassment at the hands 
of the accused, and that led him to 9ommit suicide by hanging 
himself with a rope inside his house and thus, he was found in G 
a hanging condition . .A.nalysing the evidence the trial court found 
that the charge leveled against the accused had been proved 
and accordingly found them guilty for the offence under Section 
306 IPC. 
H
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
7. After determining the guilt, while imposing the sentence, 
the learned trial Judge has held that:-
"As per record, all the convicts are the first offender and 
they also belong to a weaker section of the society. While 
B 
it has also come on record that the deceased had teased 
Seema, daughter of accused Satbir Singh. As such, all 
of them have committed an offence punishable u/s 306 
of the Indian Penal Code. So, keeping in view the nature 
of the offence and other circumstances of the case and 
C 
in order to meet the ends of justice, I think that a lenient 
view is required to be taken on the quantum of sentence. 
So, I sentence all the three convicts to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of three years each with a fine 
of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) each and in default 
D 
of payment thereof to undergo R. I. for six months. " 
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction 
and order of sentence, the respondents preferred a criminal 
appeal before the High Court which affirmed the conviction. It 
E 
is necessary to mention here that the informant had preferred 
a criminal revision for conversion of the criminal offence but 
the same did not find favour with the High Court and accordingly 
it dismissed the same. 
F 
G 
H 
9.As far as the criminal appeal is concerned, the High 
Court gave the stamp of approval to the conviction but as 
regards the sent1nce, it held thus:-
"As regards the
quantum. of sentence of imprisonment, 
this Court, hereby, refers to the jail custody certificates, 
as per which each of the appellants has undergone a 
period of 4 months and 20 days. They are not found to 
be involved in any other criminal case. 
In view of the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of 
the considered view that no useful purpose will be ser.(ed
RAJ BALA v. STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. 
123 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
by sending the appellants back to jail for remaining 
A 
sentences of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be 
amply met if their substantive sentences of imprisonment 
are reduced to the one already undergone by them. 
10. The reduction of sentence is the primary grievance in 
B 
one of the appeals herein. As far as the dismissal of revision 
petition by the High Court is concerned, no infirmity is 
perceived, for there could neither have been conversion of the 
offence nor enhancement of sentence. Thus, we restrict our 
delineation as regards the reduction of sentence by the High C 
Court while dealing with the Criminal Appeal No. 1460 of 2004 
arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence 
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat 
in Sessions Case No. 161 of 2003. 
11. Analysed on the touchstone of aforesaid principles 
stated and reiterated by this Court, as regards the imposition 
D 
of sentence, it is really unfathomable how the High Court could 
have observed that no useful purpose would be serve by 
sending the accused persons to jail for undergoing their E 
remaining sentences of imprisonment, for the High Court itself 
has recorded that the appellants therein had remained in 
custody only for a period of four months and twenty days. 
Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide and further 
stipulates that whoever abets in the. crime would be punished . F 
with imprisonment
for either description for a term which may 
extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The two 
ingredients are essential to prove the offence, that is, the death 
should be suicidal in nature and there must be abetment thereof. 
The learned trial Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the· G 
respondents had committed the offence under Section 306 
IPC. He has applied the test that the accused persons are 
first offenders and belong to weaker section of the society. 
Another mitigating fact that has been recorded is that daughter H
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A of the accused Satbir Singh was teased. He has also 
mentioned the nature of the offence and other circumstances 
of the case. It is also not discernible how the principle of "first 
offender" would come into play in such a case. Once the 
offence under Section 306 IPC is proved, there should have 
B been adequate and appropriate punishment. The learned trial 
Judge has, on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence 
on record, come to the conclusion that the deceased was 
assaulted and being apprehensive of further torture, he 
committed suicide. The mitigating factors which have been 
C highlighted by the learned trial Judge are absolutely non-
mitigating factors and, in a way, totally inconsequential for 
imposing a sentence of three years. The approach of the High 
Court, as the reasoning would show, reflects more of a casual 
0 
and fanciful one rather than just one. A Court, while imposing 
sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of the 
society. The legislature in its wisdom has conferred discretion 
on the Court but the duty of the court in such a situation becomes 
more difficult and complex. It has to exercise the discretion on 
E reasonable and rational parameters. The discretion cannot 
be allowed to yield to fancy or notion. A Judge has to keep in 
mind the paramount concept of rule of law and the conscience 
of the collective and balance it with the principle of 
proportionality but when the
discretion is exercised in a 
F capricious manner, it tantamounts to relinquishment of duty and 
reckless abandonment of responsibility. One cannot remain 
a total alien to the demand of the socio-cultural milieu regard 
being had to the command of law and also brush aside the 
agony of the victim or the survivors of the victim. Society waits 
G with patience to see that justice is done. There is a hope on 
the part of the society and when the criminal culpability is 
established and the discretion is irrationally exercised by the 
court, the said hope is shattered and the patience is wrecked. 
It is the duty of the court not to exercise the discretion in such a 
H manner as a consequence of which the expectation inherent
RAJ BALA v. STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. 
125 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.} 
in patience, which is the "finest part of fortitude" is destroyed. A 
A Judge should never feel that the individuals who constitute 
the society as a whole is imperceptible to the exercise of 
discretion. He should always bear in mind that errqneous and 
fallacious exercise of discretion is perceived by a visible 
collective. 
B 
12. In the instant case, we are constrained to say that the 
learned Single Judge while dealing with the appeal preferred 
by the respondents has remained quite unmindful and 
unconcerned to the obvious and, therefore, the reduction of C 
sentence by the High Court to the period already undergone 
is set aside and the sentence imposed by the learned trial 
Judge is restored. 
13. We may hasten to add though we have commented o 
on the approach of the learned trial Judge, we cannot change 
the scenario in the absence of any appeal either by the State· 
or the persons aggrieved in that regard. Though a revision 
preferred by the informant has been dismissed by the High 
Court, the same did not pertain to the challenge to the quantum E 
of sentence as it could not have. 
14. Consequently, the appeal, as far as the challenge to 
the reduction of sentence by the High Court is concerned, is 
allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 
F 
by the trial Judge is restored. The appeal challenging the order 
passed in the revision by the High Court is dismissed. The 
respondent nos. 2
t6 4 be taken into custody forthwith to 
undergo the remaining part of their sentences. 
G 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals disposed of.