STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 613, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 613
613
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2022)
APRIL 08, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Appeal by State: Conviction of accused-B by the trial Court
for the offence u/s.307 IPC for having caused serious injuries on
the vital part of the body of the victim/injured – Trial Court sentenced
accused-B to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment – In an
appeal before the High Court, the accused did not challenge the
conviction, but only prayed the Court to reduce the sentence to the
period already undergone by him by submitting that occurrence
took place about 26 years ago; that they were facing trial since
then; and when the occurrence took place, they were young and
now they are aged persons – High Court, without any detailed
analysis of the facts of the case, nature of injuries caused, weapon
used, simply reduced the sentence to the period already undergone
(44 days) – Held: The manner in which the High Court dealt with
the appeal and has reduced the sentence, without adverting to the
relevant facts and without considering the gravity and nature of
offence, is unsustainable – High Court has dealt with the appeal in
a most casual and cavalier manner – The judgment and order passed
by the High Court reducing the sentence is nothing but an instance
of travesty of justice and against all the principles of law on imposing
appropriate punishment/suitable punishment – As per s.307 IPC,
whoever
does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under
such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would
be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also
be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act,
the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to
such punishment as mentioned in s.307 IPC – In the instant case,
accused-B could have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
and/or at least up to ten years – Trial court sentenced him to undergo
three years rigorous imprisonment – Therefore, as such, trial court
already took a very lenient view while imposing the sentence of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
only three years’ rigorous imprisonment – Therefore, High Court
ought not to have interfered with the same – Merely because a long
period lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground
to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate
– High Court did not at all advert to the relevant factors while
imposing appropriate/suitable punishment/sentence – The manner
in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the appeal
is highly deprecated – Penal Code, 1860 – s.307 – Judicial
deprecation.
Appeal: Appeal preferred by the State against order of
probation passed in favour of accused-M – Trial court granted
benefit of probation to accused-M, against which the State did not
prefer any appeal before the High Court and it was the accused
who preferred appeal, which came to be dismissed – State ought
not to have preferred the instant appeal against the accused-M,
when his appeal before the High Court was dismissed and the
conviction was confirmed – If the State was aggrieved against
granting the benefit of probation, in that case, in the first instance,
the State ought to have preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Appeal: Delay on part of State in filing appeal – Condonation
of – Plea by accused that they have resettled in their lives and have
not indulged in any criminal activity and therefore, substantial delay
on part of State in filing appeal should not be condoned – Held:
Merely on
the technical ground of delay and merely on the ground
that the accused have resettled in their lives and their conduct has
since been satisfactory and they have not indulged in any criminal
activity, is no ground not to condone the delay and not to consider
the appeal on merits – The delay of 1880 days in preferring appeal
is condoned.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.The approach of the High Court is most cavalier.
Therefore, the order of the High Court merits interference by
this Court. Merely on the technical ground of delay and merely
on the ground that after the impugned judgment and order, which
is unsustainable, the accused have resettled in their lives and
their conduct has since been satisfactory and they have not
indulged in any criminal activity, is no ground not to condone the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
615
delay and not to consider the appeal on merits. Hence, the
delay of 1880 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
[Para 8][625-F-G]
2.1 In the matter on hand, it is proved that the victim has
sustained a grievous injury on vital portion of body, i.e, head and
there was a fracture on the skull. Doctor has also opined that the
injury was life-threatening and the injury suffered by the injured
was, in the ordinary course of nature, sufficient to cause death.
As per Section 307 IPC, whoever does any act with such intention
or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that
act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is
caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable
either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as
mentioned in Section 307 IPC. Thus, in the present case, the
accused could have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
and/or at least up to ten years. The trial Court sentenced the
accused-B to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.
Therefore, as such, the trial Court had already taken a very lenient
view while imposing the sentence of only three years’ rigorous
imprisonment. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have
interfered with the same. Though the High Court has not stated
anything, from the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court, it
appears that what weighed with the High Court is
the submission on behalf of the accused that the occurrence took
place on 31.03.1989, i.e., about 26 years ago; that they were facing
trial since last 26 years; and when the occurrence took place,
they were young and now they are aged persons. The aforesaid
cannot be the sole consideration while awarding an appropriate
and/or adequate sentence. Even with regard to the submission
on behalf of the accused that there is no minimum sentence under
Section 307 IPC and that the sentence would be up to ten years,
the same is answered by holding that discretion has to be
exercised judiciously and the sentence has to be imposed
proportionately and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence
committed and by considering the principles for imposing
sentence. [Para 9][625-H; 626-A-F]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal (2018) 18 SCC 535;
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Udham (2019) 10 SCC 300;
Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar v. State of Gujarat
(2015) 7 SCC 359 : [2015] 2 SCR 751 – relied on.
2.2 Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time
the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment
which is disproportionate and inadequate. The High Court has
not at all adverted to the relevant factors which were required to
be while imposing appropriate/suitable punishment/sentence. The
High Court has dealt with and disposed of the appeal in a most
cavalier manner. The High Court has disposed of the appeal by
adopting shortcuts. The manner in which the High Court has dealt
with and disposed of the appeal is highly deprecated. [Para
10][626-G-H]
2.3 In cases, like the present one, the accused did not press
any challenge to the conviction and prayed for reduction in
sentence and the same is considered and an inadequate and
inappropriate sentence has been imposed without assigning any
further reasons and without adverting to the relevant factors
which are required to be considered while imposing appropriate
punishment/sentence. Such practice of disposing of criminal
appeals by adopting shortcuts is deprecated. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing
the sentence to the period already undergone (44 days) from three
years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the
learned trial Court
in respect of accused-B is absolutely unsustainable and the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 10][627-B-D]
3. Now so far as the appeal preferred by the State against
the accused-M is concerned, even the trial Court granted the
benefit of probation to the said accused, against which the State
did not prefer any appeal before the High Court and it was the
accused who preferred appeal, which came to be dismissed.
Therefore, the State ought not to have preferred the present
appeal against the accused-M, when his appeal before the High
Court came to be dismissed and the conviction came to be
confirmed. If the State was aggrieved against granting the benefit
of probation, in that case, in the first instance, the State ought to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
617
have preferred an appeal before the High Court. [Para 11]
[627-E-F]
Case Law Reference
(2018) 18 SCC 535
relied on
Para 4.5
(2019) 10 SCC 300
relied on
Para 4.5
[2015] 2 SCR 751
relied on
Para 4.5
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
579 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal
Appeal No.36 of 1993.
Vishal Meghwal, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Abhishek Gupta, Ms. Rohini Musa, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 36/1993, by which the
High Court has partly allowed the said appeal and while maintaining the
conviction of respondent no.1 herein for the offence under Section 307
IPC, has reduced the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment
to the period already undergone by him in confinement (44 days), and so
far as the accused – Mohan Lal is concerned, the High Court has not
interfered with the order of the trial Court convicting him under Section
324 IPC, and releasing him on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C., the
State has preferred the present appeal.
3. That the respondents herein and others were tried by the learned
trial Court for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149,
447 & 323 IPC
and also under Section 307 IPC (so far as accused Banwari Lal –
respondent no.1 herein is concerned). Respondent No.1 herein – Banwari
Lal was tried for the offence under Section 307 IPC for having caused
grievous injuries on the skull/middle of the head of the injured person –
Phool Chand. That the injured Phool Chand sustained one lacerated
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
wound of size 10 x 1 cms bone deep extending up to brain membrane in
the centre of the skull and the bone was emerging out. He also sustained
other injuries.
3.1 On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court held that
the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries
suffered by the injured Phool Chand which were caused by the accused
– Banwari Lalwere sufficient for causing death, in the ordinary course
of nature. By observing so, the learned trial Court convicted the
respondent – Banwari Lal for the offence under Section 307 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. However,
so far as the accused Mohan Lal is concerned, the learned trial Court,
though convicted him, but granted the benefit of probation.
3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the
respondents – accused Banwari Lal and Mohan Lal, both, preferred an
appeal before the High Court. Before the High Court, the main
submissions were made on behalf of the accused – Banwari Lal, in
which the respondents did not challenge their conviction but prayed to
reduce the sentence so far as the accused Banwari Lal is concerned, on
the grounds that occurrence took place on 31.03.1989, i.e., about 26
years ago; that they were facing trial since last 26 years; and when the
occurrence took place, they were young and now they are
old/aged
persons. It was also submitted on behalf of the accused Banwari Lal
that as the benefit of probation has been given to the accused Mohan
Lal, he may also be given the benefit of probation. Thereafter, without
assigning any further reasons whatsoever and without considering the
nature or gravity of offence and the serious injuries caused by the accused
Banwari Lal on the injured Phool Chand, the High Court has partly allowed
the said appeal and while maintaining the conviction, has reduced the
sentence to the period already undergone by him (44 days). The High
Court has dismissed the appeal in respect of the accused Mohan Lal.
3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, interfering with the sentence imposed
by the learned trial Court and reducing it to the period already undergone
(44 days) from three years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned
trial Court insofar as accused Banwari Lal is concerned, as also,
confirming the order of probation insofar as accused Mohan Lal is
concerned, the State has preferred the present appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
619
3.4 There is a huge delay of 1880 days in preferring the appeal
and therefore a separate criminal miscellaneous application is filed by
the State, praying to condone the delay.
4. Shri Vishal Meghwal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
reducing the sentence to the period already undergone (44 days) from
three years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Court is
unsustainable.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted that as such there are no specific
reasons assigned by the High Court while reducing the sentence imposed
by the trial Court.
4.2 It is contended that while reducing the sentence the High
Court has not at all dealt with and/or considered the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances, which are relevant for the purpose of imposing
an appropriate punishment/sentence.
4.3 It is submitted that the High Court has not at all considered
the gravity of the offence and the serious injuries sustained by the victim/
injured Phool Chand.
4.4 It is further submitted that when the judicial discretion was
exercised by the learned trial Court sentencing the accused to undergo
three years’ rigorous imprisonment (Banwari Lal) for the offence under
Section 307 IPC, the same ought not to have been interfered with by the
High Court, more particularly, when the appeal challenging the conviction
was not pressed.
4.5
Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions
of this Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, reported
in (2018) 18 SCC 535; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Udham, reported
in (2019) 10 SCC 300; and Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar v.
State of Gujarat, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 359, it is prayed to allow
the present appeal, quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court and restore the judgment of the learned trial
Court.
5. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Abhishek
Gupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
5.1 Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the accused has vehemently submitted that there is a huge delay of 1880
days in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court. That the accused have resettled in their lives
and their conduct has since been satisfactory and after the impugned
judgment is passed, they have not indulged in any criminal activity and
the occurrence is of the year 1989, to revive the proceedings would be
extremely harsh and unjustified. Therefore, it is prayed not to condone
the huge delay of 1880 days in preferring the appeal.
5.2 On merits, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused
has vehemently submitted that while reducing the sentence the High
Court has considered the submissions on behalf of the accused Banwari
Lal that the occurrence took place about 26 years ago and that the
accused were facing trial since last 26 years and that when the
occurrence took place in the year 1989, the accused were young and
now they are aged persons. It is submitted that the aforesaid can be said
to be relevant considerations while reducing the sentence to the period
already undergone (44 days).
5.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has further
submitted that insofar as granting the benefit of probation to the accused
Mohan Lal is concerned, the same was granted by the learned trial
Court against which the State did not
prefer any appeal before the High
Court. It is therefore submitted that when the High Court by the
impugned judgment and order has dismissed the appeal preferred by the
accused Mohan Lal, it is not open for the State to now challenge the
order granting benefit of probation to the accused Mohan Lal, when the
same was not challenged by the State before the High Court.
5.4 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to reject the
application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal even on merits.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the accused Banwari
Lal was convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section
307 IPC for having caused serious injuries on the vital part of the body
of the victim/injured Phool Chand. That the injured Phool Chand sustained
one lacerated wound of size 10 x 1 cms bone deep extending up to brain
membrane in the centre of the skull and the bone was protruding.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
621
Thereafter, having found the accused Banwari Lal guilty, the learned
trial Court sentenced him to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment.
In an appeal before the High Court, the accused did not challenge the
conviction, but only prayed the Court to reduce the sentence to the period
already undergone by him by submitting that occurrence took place on
31.03.1989, i.e., about 26 years ago; that they were facing trial since last
26 years; and when the occurrence took place, they were young and
now they are aged persons. The High Court, without any detailed analysis
of the facts of the case, nature of injuries caused, weapon used, has
simply reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (44 days).
Relevant part of the impugned judgment reads as under:
“I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused
the relevant material on record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think
it just and proper to interfere in the impugned judgment and order
passed by the trial court qua appeal filed by appellant Mohan Lal
is concerned.
So far as the appeal filed by accused appellant Banwari Lal is
concerned, keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for
the appellants that accused appellant Banwari Lal is facing the
trial for the last 26 years; he has remained in custody for 44 days
during trial; he is not the previously convicted person, in my view,
ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the
appellant Banwari is reduced to the period already undergone by
him in confinement, as indicated herein-above. Hence, this appeal
is disposed of with the following directions:
i) The appeal filed by the appellant Banwari is partly allowed;
ii) His conviction is maintained. His sentence is reduced and
he is released for the period already undergone by him in
confinement, as indicated above.
iii) The sentence of the accused appellant Banwari Lal was
suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his
bail bonds stand cancelled.
iv) So far as appeal filed by accused Mohan Lal is concerned,
since he has already been given the benefit of probation, I do
not find any force in his appeal and consequently, the appeal,
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
qua accused Mohan Lal, is dismissed after confirming the
judgment and order passed by the trial court.
Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.”
6.1 The manner in which the High Court has dealt with the appeal
and has reduced the sentence, without adverting to the relevant facts
and without considering the gravity and nature of offence, is unsustainable.
The High Court has dealt with the appeal in a most casual and cavalier
manner. The judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the
sentence is nothing but an instance of travesty of justice and against all
the principles of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions on
imposing appropriate punishment/suitable punishment.
7. At this stage, few decisions of this Court on principles for
sentencing and tests for awarding an appropriate sentence in a given
case are required to be referred to and considered.
i) In the case of Mohan Lal (supra), the High Court modified the
judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court and sentenced the
accused to the period already undergone by him, which was only six
days and absolutely no reasons, much less valid reasons, were assigned
by the High Court. While setting aside the order passed by the High
Court, this Court has observed in paragraphs 9 to 13 as under:
“9. The High Court simply brushed aside the aforementioned
material facts and sentenced the accused to the period already
undergone
by him, which is only 6 days in this case. In our view,
the trial court and the High Court have taken a lenient view by
convicting the accused for offences under Sections 325 and 323
IPC. Absolutely no reasons, much less valid reasons, are assigned
by the High Court to impose the meagre sentence of 6 days. Such
imposition of sentence by the High Court shocks the judicial
conscience of this Court.
10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines
that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary.
However, the courts have framed certain guidelines in the matter
of imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide discretion in awarding
the sentence within the statutory limits. Since in many offences
only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences
the minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises his
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
623
discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity.
However, this Court has repeatedly held that the courts will have
to take into account certain principles while exercising their
discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence and
rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess
the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the
commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of
an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its
harmfulness.
11. This Court in Soman v. State of Kerala [Soman v. State of
Kerala, (2013) 11 SCC 382 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 1] observed
thus: (SCC p. 393, para 27)
“27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various
different rationales — most prominent amongst which would
be proportionality and deterrence.
27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be
relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint.
27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must
be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the
offence.
27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of
the offence is the consequences resulting from it.
27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly
attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable.
In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the
chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer
but the distributor and the retail
vendor would know its likely
risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the
consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated
culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous
hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor.”
12. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister Anthony
Pareira v. State of Maharashtra [Alister Anthony Pareira v.
State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ)
848 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 953] wherein it is observed thus: (SCC
p. 674, para 84)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
“84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime.
One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of
appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence
commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the
manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket
formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The
courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of
the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What
sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in
mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of
the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”
13. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the
principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence
should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and
commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the
manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime,
motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending
circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the
sentence. The court cannot afford to be casual while imposing
the sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are
equally important in the sentencing process. The courts must see
that the public does not lose confidence
in the judicial system.
Imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice
system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence
in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance.”
ii) In the case of Udham (supra), in paragraphs 11 to 13, it is
observed and held as under:
“11. We are of the opinion that a large number of cases are being
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
625
12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analysed on the touchstone
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, anti-social 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 defence, 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
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.”
In the said decision, this Court again cautioned against the cavalier
manner in which sentencing is dealt with in certain cases.
iii) In the case of Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar (supra),
this Court has observed and held that the purpose and justification behind
sentencing is not only retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation but
deterrence as well.
8. Applying the law laid down by this Court on principles for
sentencing, to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that
the approach of the High Court is most cavalier. Therefore, the order of
the High Court merits interference by this Court. Merely on the technical
ground of delay and merely on the ground that after the impugned
judgment and order, which is unsustainable, the accused have resettled
in their lives and their conduct has since been satisfactory and they have
not indulged in any criminal activity, is no ground not to condone the
delay and not to consider the appeal on merits. Hence, the delay of 1880
days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
9. In the matter on hand, it is proved that the victim Phool Chand
has sustained a grievous injury on vital portion of body, i.e, head and
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
there was a fracture on the skull. Doctor has also opined that the injury
was life-threatening and the injury suffered by the injured Phool Chand
was, in the ordinary course of nature, sufficient to cause death. As per
Section 307 IPC, whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be
liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as
mentioned in Section 307 IPC. Thus, in the present case, the accused
could have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and/or at least
up to ten years. The learned trial Court sentenced the accused Banwari
Lal to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, as such,
the learned trial Court had already taken a very lenient view while
imposing the sentence of only three years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Therefore, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same.
Though the High Court has not stated anything, from the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that what
weighed with the High Court is the submission on behalf of the accused
that the occurrence of the incident took place on 31.03.1989, i.e., about
26 years ago; that they
were facing trial since last 26 years; and when
the occurrence took place, they were young and now they are aged
persons. The aforesaid cannot be the sole consideration while awarding
an appropriate and/or adequate sentence. Even with regard to the
submission on behalf of the accused that there is no minimum sentence
under Section 307 IPC and that the sentence would be up to ten years,
the same is answered by holding that discretion has to be exercised
judiciously and the sentence has to be imposed proportionately and looking
to the nature and gravity of the offence committed and by considering
the principles for imposing sentence, referred to hereinabove.
10. Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal
is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is
disproportionate and inadequate. The High Court has not at all adverted
to the relevant factors which were required to be while imposing
appropriate/suitable punishment/sentence. As observed hereinabove, the
High Court has dealt with and disposed of the appeal in a most cavalier
manner. The High Court has disposed of the appeal by adopting shortcuts.
The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the
appeal is highly deprecated. We have come across a number of judgments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
627
of different High Courts and it is found that in many cases the criminal
appeals are disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated
methods. In some cases, the convictions under Section 302 IPC are
converted to Section 304 Part I or Section 304 Part II IPC without
assigning any adequate reasons and solely recording submissions on behalf
of the accused that their conviction may be altered to Section 304 Part I
or 304 Part II IPC. In cases, like the present one, the accused did not
press any challenge to the conviction and prayed for reduction in sentence
and the same is considered and an inadequate and inappropriate sentence
has been imposed without assigning any further reasons and without
adverting to the relevant factors which are required to be considered
while imposing appropriate punishment/sentence. We deprecate such
practice of disposing of criminal appeals by adopting shortcuts. Therefore,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing
the sentence to the period already undergone (44 days) from three years
rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Court in respect of
accused Banwari Lal is absolutely unsustainable and the same deserves
to be quashed and set aside.
11. Now so far as the appeal preferred by the State against the
accused Mohan Lal is concerned, it is required to be noted that even the
learned trial Court granted the benefit of probation to the said accused,
against which the State did not prefer
any appeal before the High Court
and it was the accused who preferred appeal, which came to be dismissed.
Therefore, the State ought not to have preferred the present appeal
against the accused Mohan Lal, when his appeal before the High Court
came to be dismissed and the conviction came to be confirmed. If the
State was aggrieved against granting the benefit of probation, in that
case, in the first instance, the State ought to have preferred an appeal
before the High Court.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated
above, the present appeal is allowed insofar as the accused Banwari Lal
is concerned. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court interfering with the order of sentence imposed by the learned trial
Court and sentencing the accused Banwari Lal to undergo the sentence
to the period already undergone by him (44 days) from three years’
rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Court under Section
307 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed
by the learned trial Court sentencing the accused Banwari Lal to undergo
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC is hereby
restored. The accused Banwari Lal is directed to surrender before the
appropriate jail authority/concerned Court, within a period of four weeks
from today, to undergo the remaining sentence.
Insofar as the appeal preferred by the State against the accused
Mohan Lal is concerned, the same is hereby dismissed.
Devika Gujral
Partly allowed.