Supreme Court of India
RAJ BALAversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 583
- Decided
- 18 August 2015
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
The High Court's reduction of the sentence was erroneous; the original conviction and three‑year sentence imposed by the trial court stand, as the sentence cannot be altered without a proper appeal.
Summary
The accused were convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide and sentenced by the trial court to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the term to the period already served (four months and twenty days), citing lack of further purpose in imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that while courts must consider the collective cry of society and the principle of proportionality, the trial court's sentence, though arguably lenient, could not be altered in the absence of a proper appeal by the State. Consequently, the High Court's reduction was set aside and the original three‑year sentence was restored, with the accused ordered to serve the balance of their term. The Court emphasized that sentencing discretion must be exercised on reasonable, rational parameters and cannot be swayed by fanciful or overly sympathetic considerations.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court could lawfully reduce the sentence imposed under Section 306 IPC to the period already undergone.
- Whether the trial court's three‑year sentence for abetment of suicide is adequate and proportionate to the offence.
- Whether the principle of proportionality and the collective societal interest mandate a higher punishment for Section 306 offences.
- Whether a sentence can be altered in the absence of an appeal by the State or any aggrieved party.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 306
Subjects
sentencingproportionalityabetment of suicideSection 306 IPCcollective societal interestjudicial discretionreduction of sentencecriminal law
Judgment
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 113
RAJ BALA A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1049-1050 OF 2015 etc.)
B
AUGUST 18, 2015
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
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
113
H
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
see that justice is done. There is a hope on the part of
0
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]
Case Law Reference
(2013) 1 sec 545 relied on Para 1 H
2006 (1) SCR 477 relied on Para 2
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 9 S.C.R.
A (2014) 9 sec 2s1 relied on Para 3
(2015) 1 sec 222 relied on Para 3
2015 (1) SCR 709 relied on Para 3
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
B Appeal Nos. 1049-1050 of 2015
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
c Siddharth Mittal, Surender Singh, Usha Nandini V. for the
Appellant.
Alok Sangwan, AAG, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Manju Jetley,
V. Madhukar for the Respondents.
D
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
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
F
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
G
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. 117
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent A
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 B
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 c
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
D
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 E
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
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
H
c2006) 2 sec 359
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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
E 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.
F 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
G 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]
H 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 Singh 5 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 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,
G 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
H
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.
D
11. Analysed on the touchstone of aforesaid principles
stated and reiterated by this Court, as regards the imposition
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
and fanciful one rather than just one. A Court, while imposing
0
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.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "sentencing"Sign in to search