Supreme Court of India
SAHDEVversusJAIBAR @ JAI DEV & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 284
- Decided
- 27 February 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court restored the ten‑year sentence for Raj Kumar under Section 307 IPC and upheld the High Court's sentences for the other co‑accused.
Summary
The informant Sahdev appealed a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that upheld convictions of four accused under Sections 307, 326 and 34 IPC for a brutal assault in which one victim lost his memory, but reduced the custodial term for the principal accused Raj Kumar from ten to seven years without providing reasons. The Supreme Court examined the duty of courts to impose sentences proportionate to the nature and manner of the offence and stressed that undue sympathy leading to inadequate punishment undermines public confidence. Considering the serious injuries, including deep incised wounds and loss of memory, the Court held that the High Court’s reduction was unjustified for Raj Kumar. It restored the original ten‑year term for him, while finding no basis to alter the sentences of the other two co‑accused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, enhancing only Raj Kumar’s sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence for the offence under Section 307 IPC from ten years to seven years without recording reasons.
- How the principles of proportionality, aggravating and mitigating factors should guide sentencing in serious offences.
- Whether the severity of injuries, including loss of memory, warrants restoring the original ten‑year sentence for the principal accused Raj Kumar.
- Whether the sentences of the other co‑accused should also be enhanced.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 326, s. 34
Subjects
sentencingproportionalitySection 307 IPCaggravating factorsmitigating factorscriminal lawsentence enhancementloss of memoryIndian Penal Code
Judgment
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 722
A SAHDEV "
~-
V.
JAIBAR@ JAi DEV & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Criminal Law:
c
Sentencing - HELD: It is duty of court to award proper
sentence having regard to nature of offence and the manner
in which it was committed - Undue sympathy to impose
inadequate sentence would do more harm - In the instant
D case, accused mercilessly beat the victims and one of them .~
lost his memory - High Court though upheld conviction uls
307 but without assigning any reason reduced the sentence
from 10 years to 7 years - Sentence of 10 years restored as
regards the accused who caused injuries to the victim
resulting in loss of his memory - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 307
E
and 326 rlw s.34.
The informant filed the appeal challenging the ...
judgment of the High Court, which though upheld the
conviction of respondents nos. 1 to 4 for offences •
F punishable ulss 307 and 326, rlw s.34 IPC but reduced
the custodial sentence from 10 years to 7 years. It was
pleaded for the appellant that the victims were
mercilessly beaten so much so that one of the victims lost
his memory, and, in the circumstances, the High Court
G was not right in reducing the sentence.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court ·-
HELD: 1.1. The criminal law adheres in general to the
H 722
SAHDEV v. JAIBAR@ JAi DEV & ORS. 723
)
principle of proportionality in prescribing liability A
according to the culpability of each kind of criminal
conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion
to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case,
presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle
considerations of culpability that are raised by the special B
facts of each case. [Para 6] [727-E-H]
·•, 1.2. In order to award just and appropriate sentence
for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and
circumstances in which a crime has been committed are
to be delicately balanced by the court in a dispassionate
c
manner. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task.
But undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to the justice system and undermine
':. the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society
can not long endure under such serious threats. It is, D
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 committed. [Para 5, 6 and 8]
[727-C-E; 728-D-E]
E
Mahesh v. State of M.P. (1987) 2 SCR 710; Sevaka
Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu AIR 1991 SC 1463;
-" Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat 1994 (4) SCC
4 353 and State of M.P. v. Ghanshyan Singh (2003) 8 SCC 13,
referred to. F
Dennis Counc/e MCGDautha v. State of Cal/ifomia: 402
US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711, referred to.
1.3. In the instant case, the injuries suffered by victim
'RS' were definitel} llf a very serious nature. The trial G
' -J court has imposed a sentence of 10 years in respect of
offence relatable to s. 307 IPC. The High Court has not
indicated any reason for reducing the sentence to 7
years. The injuries on victim 'RS' were attributed to
accused 'RK'. In the circumstances of the case, so far as H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A accused 'RK' is concerned, the appeal is allowed by
enhancing the sentence from 7 years to 10 years in
respect of offence relatable to Section 307 IPC. So far as
the other two respondents-accused are concerned,
though no reason has been indicated, considering the
B nature of the injuries caused by them, the sentence as
imposed by the High Court does not appear to be on the
lower side. [Para 3, 10 and 11] [726-B-C; 729-D-F]
Case Law Reference:
c (1987) 2 SCR 710 referred to para 4
AIR 1991 SC 1463 referred to para 5
402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 referred to para 8
1994 (4) sec 353 referred to para 9 ."
D
(2003) 8 sec 13 referred to para 9
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 403 of 2009.
E From the Judgment &Order dated 4.1.06 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal No. 493-SB/
1994.
Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal by the informant is to the
G judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court by which the High Court while upholding the
conviction of respondents 1 to 4 for offence punishable under
Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
H
SAHDEV v. JAIBAR @ JAi DEV & ORS. 725
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
'
Jo
A
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') reduced the sentence from 10
years to 7 years in respect of first offence.
3. The factual scenario has been described in detail in
Criminal Appeal No.16/2007 and Criminal Appeal No........ of
2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 2007 of 2008) disposed of by B
us today. In the present appeal filed by the complainant, who
had suffered injuries the legality of the order so far as it relates
,I
...
to reduction of sentence is concerned, has been questioned. It
has been stated that the victims were mercilessly beaten and
large number of injuries were caused to them. Without even
indicating any basis, the sentence has been reduced. Injured
c
Ram Swarup could not be examined because, as per the
opinion of the doctor, he has lost his memory due to the injury
caused to him. So far as the injuries on Ram Swarup are
~, concerned they are as follows:
D
1. An incised wound 10x4x2 cm. deep over front of
the neck just above the thyrod cartilage. The trachea
was cut and exposed. Advised E.N.T. Surgeon's
opinion.
E
2. An incised wound 16x2 cm X bone deep over right
side of the scalp extending from right eyebrow to
the parietal region up to the mid line. Advised
<
'i Surgeon's opinion.
3. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm bone deep over left side F
of the scalp extending from the left eyebrow over
the scalp. Advised Surgeon's opinion.
4. Incised wound 4x1x1 cm deep over the left side of
the forehead 1 cm deep over the left side of the G
forehead 1 cm. of mild line.
5. lnci;;ed wound 4 x 1 x 1 cm. over the anterior
aspect of left shoulder.
6. Crush injury 16 cm x 8 cm x bone deep over the H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A right shoulder underlying bone muscles were
•.
exposed.
The order of the High Court is supported by learned
counsel for the accused persons.
B It is noticed that the injuries were definitely of a very
serious nature, as these injuries noted above go to show. The
trial Court has imposed a sentence of 10 years in respect of ,,'
offence relatable to Section 307 IPC. The High Court has not
indicated any reason for reducing the sentence to 7 years.
c k
4. 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
D 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
E
appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone 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".
F Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt
!he corrective machinery or the 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
G 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. For instance a murder committed due to
H deep-seated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty
·'
SAHDEV v. JAIBAR @ JAi DEV & ORS. 727
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
j of death. But an organised crime or mass murders of innocent A
people would call for imposition of death sentence as
deterrence. In Mahesh v. State of M.P. (1987) 2 SCR 710),
this Court while refusing to reduce the death sentence observed
thus:
B
"It will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused
to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such
t evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser
punishment for the accused would be to render the justicing
system of the country suspect. The common man will lose
faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and
c
appreciates the language of deterrence more than the
(
reformative jargon."
-="\
5. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate
~
, sentence would do more harm to the justice system to D
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 E
illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v.
State of Tamil Naidu (AIR 1991 SC 1463).
_, 6. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of
~
proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability
F
of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some
significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in
each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more
subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the
special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that
punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice G
sentences are determined largely by other considerations.
Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that
are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of
keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic
results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and t
create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and
widespread.
7. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal
respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains
8
a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The
practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is
)
now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure
from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the
C law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction
drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty
of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be
a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in
fact, quite apart from those considerations that make
punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime,
D uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very
undesirable practical consequences.
8. After giving due consideration to the facts and
circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate
E sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and
mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been
committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really
relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court.
•
Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very •
F aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of
Callifomia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a
foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable
criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in
the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity
G of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may
provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess
various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity
of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case,
is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably
H d!stinguished.
SAHDEV v. JAIBAR @ JAi DEV & ORS. 729
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
9. In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat (1994 A
(4) SCC 353), it has been held by .this Court that in the matter
of death sentence, the Courts are required to answer new
challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet these
challenges. The object should be to protect the society and to
deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by B
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. Even
though the principles were indicated in the background of death c
sentence and life sentence, the logic applies to all cases where
appropriate sentence is the issue. (See: State of M.P. v.
Ghanshyan Singh (2003 8 SCC 13).
10. The injuries on Ram Sarup were attributed to accused
Raj Kumar. Therefore, so far as he is concerned, the appeal D
is allowed by enhancing the sentence from 7 years to 10 years.
So far as the other two respondent accused persons are
concerned, though no reason has been indicated, considering
the nature of the injuries caused by them, the sentence as
imposed by the Hign Court does not appears to be on the lower E
side.
11. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence
in respect of accused Raj Kumar is enhanced from 7 years to
10 years in respect of offence relatable to Section 307 IPC. F
The appeal fails so far as the other co-accused.persons are
concerned in relation to the prayer for enhancement of
sentence.
12. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
G
R.P. Appeal partly allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "sentencing"Sign in to search