STATE OF PUNJAB versus BAWA SINGH
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 709, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 709 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
V. 
BAWA SINGH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2015) 
JANUARY 15, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Sentence/Sentencing - Sentence of one and half years 
for conviction u/s 326 /PC - Reduced by Revisional Court to 
A 
B 
the period already undergone (about 4 months) - Propriety C 
of - Held: It is duty of the Court to award proper sentence 
having regard to the nature of offence - Undue sympathy by 
means of inadequate sentence does more harm to the justice 
system to undermine the public confidence - High Court, 
without appreciation of the evidence and consideration of the 
D 
gravity of the offence has taken lenient view and shown undue 
sympathy- Matter remitted to High Court to pass order afresh 
in revision petition - Penal Code, 1860 - s.326. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. The sentencing courts are expected to 
consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on 
E 
the question of sentence and proceed to impose a 
sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 
F 
The court must not only keep in view the rights of the 
victim of the crime but also the society at large while 
considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. 
Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of 
time without considering the degree of the offence will be 
G 
counter-productive in the long run and against the 
interest of the society. [para 17] [719-D-F] 
State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281 
709 
H
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Singh, 2014 (12) 
SCALE 672 - relied on. 
2. Undue sympathy by means of imposing 
inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice 
8 system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy 
of law and the society cannot endure long, under serious 
threats. If the courts do not protect the injured, the injured 
would then resort to personal vengeance. Therefore, the 
duty of any court is to award proper sentence having 
C regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in 
which it was committed. [para 11] [715-0-E] 
3. In the instant case, after proper appreciation of 
evidence the trial court as well as the Sessions Court 
rightly came to the conclusion that the accused-
D respondent was not entitled for benefit to probation since 
he caused injuries on the person of the complainant with 
Gandasa and dispute between the parties was already 
pending. The trial court has not committed any illegality 
in passing the order of conviction and in the appeal 
E preferred by the accused, findings of the trial court were 
affirmed. However, without proper appreciation of the 
evidence and consideration of gravity of the offence, the 
High Court has taken lenient stand, if not casual and 
shown undue sympathy by modifying the conviction to 
F the period already undergone. Hence the impugned order 
passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is 
remanded back to the High Court to
pass a fresh order 
in the revision petition [para 10 and 19] [714-H; 715-A-C; 
720-C] 
G 
Sevaka Perumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 (2) SCR 
711 = (1991) 3 SCC 471; Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana 
vs. State of West Bengal 1994 (1) SCR 37 = (1994) 2 SCC 
220; Mahesh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1987 
(2) SCR 710 = (1987) 3 sec 80, Hazara Singh versus Raj 
H Kumar 2013 (5 ) SCR 979 = (2013) 9 SCC 516, Shailesh
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH 
711 
Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat 2006 (1) SCR 477 = (2006) 
A 
2 SCC 359; Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed vs. 
State of Gujarat 2009 (8) SCR719 = (2009) 7 SCC 254-
relied on. 
Cctse Law Reference : 
1991 (2) SCR 711 
relied on 
para 11 
1994 (1)SCR37 
relied on 
para 12 
1987 (2) SCR 710 
relied on 
para 13 
2013 (5) SCR 979 
relied on 
para 14 
2006 (1) SCR477 
relied on 
para 15 
2009 (8) SCR 719 
relied on 
para 16 
(2014) s sec 281 
relied on 
para 18 
· 2014 (12) SCALE 672 relied on 
para 18 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 90 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2013 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh \n Crl. Rev. 
No. 1789 of 2013. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
V. Madhukar, AAG, Anvita Cowshish, Naresh Bakshi for 
F 
the Appellant. 
Rishi Malhotra, B. Veera Swamy Raju for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment dated 11.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab 
G 
and Haryana in Crl. Rev. No. 1789 of 2013 whereby the High 
Court upheld the conviction of the respondent but reduced the 
H
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A period of sentence to the period already undergone. 
3. The facts of the case in brief are that a FIR No. 151 
dated 31.10.2004 was lodged against the respondent Bawa 
Singh and his wife Labh Kaur. The complainant Binder Singh 
B alleged that on 30.10.2004 while he was going on his tractor 
to his fields he saw the respondent with a cycle and carrying a 
gandasa accompanied by his wife Labh Kaur whereupon he 
stopped his tractor. The respondent and his wife were alleged 
to have said that the complainant needed to be taught a lesson 
C and allegedly hit the complainant with the gandasa. The cries 
of the complainant alerted his father Jangir Singh and his 
brother Hardev Singh who rushed to the spot whereupon the 
respondent and his wife fled abandoning the cycle. The 
complainant alleged that there was a property dispute between 
the parties. The complainant was admitted to a hospital and 
D his statement was taken only on the next day i.e. 31.10.2004 
on him being declared fit to do so. The site plan was prepared. 
The cycle was recovered from the spot and the gandasa was 
recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of the 
accused. The respondent and Labh Kaur were arrested on 
E 07.11.2004 and charges were framed against them under 
sections 323 and 326 IPC r/w section 34 IPC. 
4. The prosecution examined PW1 for proving personal 
search memo, PW2 Jangir and PW3 Hardev who deposed to 
F not having seen the accused
inflicting the injures, PW4 Binder/ 
complainant who supported the prosecution case, PW5 
Investigating Officer who proved the possession memo of the 
cycle and gandasa and PW6 Doctor who examined the 
complainant and found few simple injuries and one grievous 
G injury on the finger. 
H 
5. It was pleaded on behalf of the accused that the cycle 
allegedly left behind had not been produced. It was alleged that 
the depositions of PW 2 and 3 could not be relied upon as they 
were not eye witnesses and were interested witnesses and that
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 713 
the injuries on the complainant or the admitted injuries on the 
A 
accused were not explained. It was also alleged that there was 
an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. 
6. The trial court held that the statements of PW-2 Jangir 
and PW-3 Hardev were relevant and not merely hearsay 
evidence and that their statements would not be unreliable 
merely because they were relatives. The delay in filing the FIR 
was held to be explained as the complainant was proven to be 
unfit to make the statement on the day of the incident. The court 
further noted that though the accused claimed to have been 
injured, they had not filed a complaint or put any suggestion 
regarding the same to the prosecution witness. The injuries on 
the accused were simple in nature. It was held that non-
production of the cycle or the blood soaked soil was not fatal 
to the prosecution case. The court held that the conduct of the 
accused in travelling one kilometer from their house armed with 
a gandasa and inflicting injuries on the complainant proved their 
common intention and that the medical evidence proved that 
the injuries inflicted were simple and in one instance grievous 
in nature. The trial court convicted the respondent and 
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine 
of Rs.1000/- for offence punishable under section 326, IPC and 
rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- for 
offence punishable under section
323 IPC. Labh Kaur was also 
convicted under sections 326 and 323 IPC r/w section 34 IPC 
and awarded the same sentence. 
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the 
respondent and his wife preferred appeal to the Sessions Court, 
which noted that there was documentary evidence proving that 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the accused and the complainant were treated by the same 
G 
doctor. The presence of the accused at the crime spot was 
thereby held to be proven. Labh Kaur had no injuries on her 
person and the six injuries on the respondent were held to be 
simple and its non-explanation was, therefore, held to be not 
fatal to the prosecution case. The Sessions Judge held that 
H
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
though PW-2 and PW-3 reached the spot afterwards, the 
statement of the complainant was enough to conclude that it 
was the accused who inflicted the injuries. The Sessions Judge, 
however, held that the finger injury was erroneously held to have 
been grievous as the radiologist who conducted the X-Ray of 
B 
the said injury and whose report was relied upon by PW-6 to 
hold the injury as grievous, was not examined. The Sessions 
Court set aside the conviction of the accused under section 3~6 
IPC but upheld their conviction under section 323 IPC upholding 
other findings of the trial court. The Sessions Judge also noted 
C that Labh Kaur was an old lady, who herself had not caused 
any injury to the complainant and was a first time offender and 
released her on probation on a bond of Rs.20,000/- after setting 
aside her sentence of imprisonment with fine. The respondent 
was however sentenced to imprisonment of one and half years 
0 
with fine of Rs.1000/-. 
8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the 
respondent preferred revision before the High Court. The 
respondent did not challenge the order of conviction but sought 
reduction of the sentence awarded to the period of 
E 
imprisonment already undergone by him. The High Court noted 
that the respondent had been in jail for 4 months with remission 
of 15 days and that the incident took place on 30.10.2004 
resulting in a trial for 9 years and granted the prayer
of the 
respondent subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- to the 
F 
complainant within two months. The revision petition was 
disposed off accordingly vide the impugned judgment reducing 
the sentence of the accused-respondent to the period already 
undergone. Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the 
State. 
G 
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties 
appearing on E'.ither side and perused the papers placed 
before us. 
10. We are of the opinion that, in the instant case, after 
H proper appreciation of evidence the trial court as well as the
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 715 
Sessions Court rightly came to the conclusion that the accused-
A 
respondent is not entitled for benefit to probation since he 
caused injuries on the person of the complainant with Gandasa 
and dispute between the parties was already pending. We are 
further of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any 
illegality in passing the order of conviction and in the appeal 
B 
preferred by the accused findings of the trial court were 
affirmed. However, without proper appreciation of the evidence 
and consideration of gravity of the offence, learned Single 
Judge of the High Court has taken lenient stand, if not casual 
and shown undue sympathy by modifying the conviction to the c 
period already undergone. 
11. In our considered opinion, the High Court while passing 
the impugned order has completely failed to follow the principles 
enunciated by this Court in catena of decisions. Undue 
sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence would 
do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public 
confidence in the efficacy of law and the society cannot endure 
long under serious threats. If the courts do not protect the 
injured, the injured would then resort to personal vengeance. 
Therefore, the duty of any court is to award proper sentence 
having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in 
which it was committed. (See Sevaka Perumal vs. State of 
Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC 471). 
12. In the case
of Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana vs. 
State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220, this Court held as 
under: 
D 
E 
F 
"In recent years, the rising crime rate-particularly violent 
crime against women has made the criminal sentencing 
by the courts a subject of concern. Today there are 
G 
admitted disparities. Some criminals get very harsh 
sentences while many receive grossly different sentence 
for an essentially equivalent crime and a shockingly large 
number even go unpunished, thereby encouraging the 
criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by 
H
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
716 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
weakening the system's credibility. Of course, it is not 
possible to lay down any cut and dry formula relating to 
imposition of sentence but the objeet of sentencing should 
be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the 
victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that 
justice has been done to it. In imposing sentences, in the 
absence of specific legislation, Judges must consider 
variety of factors and after considering all those factors ar .! 
taking an over-all view of the situation, impose sentence 
which they consider to be an appropriate one. Aggravating 
factors cannot be ignored and similarly mitigating 
circumstances have also to be taken into consideration. 
In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a given case 
must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the conduct 
of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state 
of the victim. 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 fitting to the crime so that the 
courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts 
must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also 
the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large 
while considering imposition of appropriate punishment." 
13. While considering this aspect, the Apex Court in the 
F case of Mahesh and
others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 
(1987) 3 sec 80, remarked that, 
" ... it will be a mockery of justice to permit these appellants 
to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such 
evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser 
G 
punishment for the appellants would be to render the 
Justice system of this country suspect. The common man 
will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and 
appreciates the language of deterrence more than the 
reformative jargon. When we say this, we do not ignore the 
H 
need for a reformative approach in the sentencing process.
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]717 
" 
A 
14. In the case of Hazara Singh versus Raj Kumar, (2013) 
9 SCC 516, this Court has observed that it is the duty of the 
courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an 
appropriate sentence. The iegislature has bestowed upon the 
judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, 
which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The 
punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the 
nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of 
proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at 
C 
a fair and impartial verdict. This Court further observed that the 
cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence 
imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has 
committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the 
offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of 
proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases. 
D 
B 
15. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 
2 SCC 359, the Apex Court opined 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 be 
achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. 
Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living 
law mu~t find answer to the new challenges and the courts 
E 
F 
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 appropriate 
sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice 
G 
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 
H
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
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 wh.ere it warrants to be. The facts and given 
circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the 
B 
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 whi~h would enter into the 
area of consideration. 
c 
D 
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." 
16. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein 
Va/i Mohammed Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 
E 254, observed as follows: 
F 
G 
H 
"99 . ... The object of awarding appropriate sentence 
should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal 
from achieving the avowed object to (sic break the) law by 
imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the 
courts would operate the sentencing system so as to 
impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the 
society and the
sentencing process has to be stern where 
it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre 
sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on 
account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will 
be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against 
the interest of society which needs to be cared for and 
strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the 
sentencing system.
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAWA SINGH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 719 
100. Justice demands that courts should impose 
A 
punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect 
public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only 
keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but the 
society at large while considering the imposition of 
appropriate punishment. The court will be failing in its duty 
B 
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 both the criminal and 
the victim belong." 
17. We again reiterate in this case that undue sympathy 
C 
to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the 
justice system to undermine the public confidence in the 
efficacy of law. It is 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. The sentencing 
courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and 
circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and 
proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity 
D 
of the offence. The court must not only keep in view the rights 
of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while 
considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre 
sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without 
considering the degre~ of the offence will be counter-productive 
in the long run and against the interest of
the society. 
18. Recently, in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh 
vs. Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281 and State of Madhya Pradesh 
vs. Surendra Singh, 2014 (12) SCALE 672, after considering 
E 
F 
and following the earlier decisions, this Court reiterated the 
settled proposition of law that one of the prime objectives of G 
criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate 
punishment which commensurate with gravity, nature of crime 
and the manner in which the offence is committed. One should 
keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society 
while considering the determinative factor of sentence with 
H
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that 
it shocks the conscience of the society. It is, therefore, solemn 
duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding the 
sentence as awarding lesser sentence encourages any criminal 
and, as a result of the same, the society suffers. 
B 
19. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the High 
Court would show that while reducing the sentence to the 
period already undergone, the High Court has not considered 
the law time and again laid down by this Court. Hence the 
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the 
C matter is remanded back to the High Court to pass a fresh order 
in the revision petition taking into consideration the law 
discussed hereinabove after giving an opportunity of hearing 
to the parties. The appeal is accordingly allowed with the 
aforesaid direction. 
D 
Kalpana K. T ripathy 
Appeal allowed and remitted to High Court.