Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC but reduced the custodial sentence to five years and increased the fine to Rs.20,000 per appellant.

Summary

The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 307 and 149 of the IPC, with the High Court altering the conviction for the assault to Section 326 read with Section 149 and imposing eight years' rigorous imprisonment plus a Rs.500 fine. The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence as disproportionate, arguing political motives, while the State sought enhancement of the sentence. The Supreme Court examined the principles of proportionality, the need for deterrence, and the appropriateness of the altered conviction. It held that the conviction under Section 326 read with Section 149 was proper, but the custodial term was excessive; the Court reduced the imprisonment to five years and increased the fine to Rs.20,000 per appellant, with a default provision if the fine was not paid. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of altering the conviction from Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC to Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC.
Whether the eight‑year rigorous imprisonment and Rs.500 fine constitute a disproportionate sentence.
Whether the High Court erred in enhancing the sentence and failing to consider proportionality principles.
The correct quantum of sentence in view of the nature and gravity of the offence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 143, s. 147, s. 149, s. 307, s. 326, s. 341

Subjects

sentencingproportionalityIPC Section 326Section 149criminal lawconviction alterationfine enhancementSupreme CourtKarnataka

Judgment

A SIDDARAMA AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF KARNA TAKA

SEPTEMBER 15. 2006

B [ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

Section 32611./9-·Conviction altered from uls. 307/149 to one uls
c 6//49-Sentence. however, enhanced by the High Courr-Held. on facts
custodial sentence reduced but fine enhanced.

The appellants and 9 others faced trial for offence punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 341, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Trial Court
D convicted accused numbers I to 6 and 8 to 13 and sentenced each to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147 and 341 read with Section 149 IPC, and in respect of offence
punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, each was sentenced
to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a line of Rs. 500/-
with default stipulation. The judgment was assailed before the High Court
E both by the accused persons and State. While accused persons questioned
conviction and setence, State on the other hand prayed for enhancement of
sentence. While maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed in respect
of the offence relatable to Section 143, 147 and 341 read with Section 149
IPC and the consequential sentence the conviction in terms of Section 307
read with Section 149 IPC was altered to Section 326 read with Section 149
F IPC and the sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment with a line of Rs.

-
500/- was found to be appropriate, by the High Court.

It was contended by the appellants that the sentence is highly
disproportionate to the nature of the offence committed when the prosecution
G version itself is to the effect that the allegations had foundation on political
differences.

It was contended on behalf of the respondent-State that this is a case to
which Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is clearly applicable. More
than 5 accused persons were involved. The sentence according to him is liberal.
I-I 276
SIDDARAMA v. STATE OF KARNA TAKA 277
Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
HELD 1.1. 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 setence having regard to
the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or B
committed etc. 1281-E, Fl

- Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu, AIR (1991) SC 1463,
referred to.

1.2. For deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an C
offence, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be given due
consid1 ~ration, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in
which as crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis
of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court.
1282-D, El D
Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28
L.D. 2d 711, referred to.

1.3. Imposition of sentence without considering its affect on the social
order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of E
the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences relating the narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances which have great impact not only on the health fabric
but also on the social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and
per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attiude by imposing meager
• sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time
or personal inconvenience in respect of such offences will be result-wise F

-- counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs
to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the
sentencing system. 1283-A-C!

Dhananjoy Chatte1jee v. State of W.B., (199412 SCC 220, referred to.
G
1.4. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting
the crime so that the Courts reflects public abhorrence of the crime. The
Court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights
of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the
imposition of appropriate punishment. (283-D, El
H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Union of India v. Ku/deep Singh, 1200412 SCC 590; Abu Ram v. Mukna
and Ors., 12005110 SCC 597 and Shailesh Jaswantbhai v. State of Gujarat
and Ors., 1200612 SCC 359, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 959 of
2006.
B
From the Judgment and final Order dated 15.12.2005 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 888/2000.

Mohan V. Katarki and Javed Mahmud Rao for the Appellants. ..,
C Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted.

D Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding appellant no. I guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Each of the accused appellants was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/-. The appellants and 9 others faced trial for offences punishable under
E Sections 143, 147, 341, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Trial Court convicted
accused numbers I to 6 and 8 to 13 and sentenced each to undergo ngorous
imprisonment for one year in respect of offences punishable under Sections
143, 147 and 341 read with Section 149 IPC, and in respect of offence punishable
under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, each was sentenced to undergo
F two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation. It had been reported to the Trial Court that accused no.7 died
during the pendency of the trial. The judgment was assailed before the High
Court both by the accused persons and State. While accused persons
questioned conviction and sentence, State on the other hand prayed for
enhancement of sentence. The appeals were disposed of as aforenoted.
G
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

T. Kumar (the injured/P.W.7) is a resident of Annechakanahally. As his
female child had been left by his wife in his father-in-law's place in Aramballi
village of K.R. Nagar Taluk, he went to his father-in-law's place on 7.5.1990
H to bring the child. On 8.5.1990 he stay~··l back there and on 9.5.1990 he was
SIDDARAMAv. STATEOFKARNATAKA[PASAYAT,J.] 279

returning to his village Annechakanahally along with his child. His brother- A
in-law - Puttaswamy (P.W.4) accompanied him. When they came near Hosa
Agrahara Railway Station, Puttaswamy proceeded further to purchase the
tickets. By the time Kumara came near the signal cabin in Hosa Agrahara
Railway Station, he saw all the accused standing near the signal cabin. They
were armed with choppers. When they saw Kumara with the child, they B
suddenly came and surrounded him and before he boarded the train, the
accused Nos. I and 2 gave a blow on the right hand of Kumara by means of
a chopper on account of which, Kumara sustained an injury and lost one of
his fingers. He left his child, who was snatched by the accused No. I I
Ramakrishna. Then all the accused together caught hold of Kumara and
dragged him to a little distance and near the hedges at a distance of about C
50 to 60 feet from the railway cabin, they began to assault him. His left li:g
was severely crushed by the assault and Kumara sustained injuries du.-! to
the assault on his right leg and other parts of the body a Iso. In the meantime,
Puttaswamy (P.W.4), who had returned to the place after purchasing tickets
and Niruvanigouda (P.W.3) and Jayabharathi (P.W.l), who had come in the
said train, which had arrived by that time at the railway st~tion, saw the D
incident. When Nirvanegouda (P.W.3) and Puttaswamy (P.W.4) attempted to
go near the accused to rescue Kumara, they were threatened by the accused.
Jn the meantime, the train had left the railway sta•ion and the accused left the
place and ran away. Kumara was grievously injured. Leaving others to look
after Kumara, Puttaswamy took the child and went to his village to inform E·
Kumara's father-in-law - Rajegowda (P.W.5). Karthikeyan, Railway Station
Master (P.W.17), who had by then come to know of the assault, came to the
spot. When Rajegowda and Annegouda assured him that they would shift
the injured to the hospital and also inform the police, he returned to the office.
Jn a tempo, the injured was shifted to Bherya Clinic. Since there was no
sufficient facility to treat the injured, he was shifted to K.R.:Nagar hospital. F
There, they were advised to take the injured to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and,
therefore, the injured was taken there. Dr. B. Suhasini, Assistant Surgeon in
K.R. Hospital (P. W.18) examined Kurnara at about 12 noon and gave treatment.
In the meantime, Kuchela Shetty who was the S.H.O. (P. W.13) of Saligrama
Police Station had :ome to the hospital. He could not take the statement of G
Kumara, since Kumara was undergoing emergency treatment. Immediately
after the treatment, at about 4.00 p.m. P. W.13 recorded the statement of
Kumara. On the basis of the same, D.V. Suresh (P.W.16), who was P.S.I. of
Saligrama Police Station (P.W.16) registered a case in Crime No.14/1990 and
forwarded the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He went to the spot and
conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.PS. He also took steps to apprehend the H

•
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A accused who were found absconding. The accused Nos. I to 4 were arrested
on 19.7.1990 and on the voluntary information furnished by them, choppers
allegedly used by the accused for assault were recovered. The accused Nos.5
and 6 were arrested on 28. 7.1990 and accused No. 7 was arrested on 27.3 .1991.
Other accused were found absconding. Despite treatment, Kumara's left leg
B could not be saved and it had to be amputated in view of the grangrene that
had set in by that time. After completion of the investigation, a charg~ sheet
was filed against all the accused showing the accused No. I I absconding.
Later accused No. I I Ramakrishna was arrested and a separate case registered
against him was also tried along with S.C.No. 109/1990.

C Accused persons pleaded not guilty. In order to establish the
accusations, 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PWs I and 3
are the eye witnesses and PW7 was the injured. PWs 2, 5, 9 and 17 went to
the placie of incidence immediately after the occurrence. PW5 was examined
to prove the motive. PW 18 was the doctor who examined the injured. The
accused persons pleaded innocence and in their examination in terms of
D Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ·er.PC'),
false accusations were pleaded. Accused no. I I examined himself as DWI to
establish the plea of alibi.

On considering the evidence of the witnesses and the injured, the trial
Court found accused persons version credible so far as accused numbers I,
E 2, 6 and 9 are concerned but found the evidence insufficient to fasten guilt
of the rest of the accused persons. The conviction and sentence as noted
above were accordingly recorded.

The convicted accused persons filed an appeal (Criminal Appeal No.888/
F 2000) while the State of Karnataka filed Criminal Appeal No.12/2001 for
enhancement of sentence and to set aside the acquittal. By the impugned
judgment the High Court allowed both the appeals in part. While maintaining
the conviction and sentence imposed in respect of the offence relatable to
Section 143, 147 and 341 read· with Section 149 !PC and the consequential
sentence the conviction in terms of Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC was
G altered to Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence of 8 years
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- was thought to be appropriate.
But the High Court did not interfere with the acquittal of the accused persons
as done by the trial Court.

The present appeal is filed by "ccused persons I, 2, 6 and 9. Though
H
SIDDARAMA v. ST ATE OF KARNA TAKA [PASAYA T, .1.] 281

various points were urged in support of the appeal, learned counsel for the A
appellants submitted that the sentence is highly disproportionate to the
nature of the offence committed. The prosecution version itself is to the effect
that the allegations had foundation on political differences.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported
the judgment of the High Court and submitted that this is a case to which B
Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is clearly applicable. More than 5
accused persons were involved and in fact one of the major players in the
whole incident i.e. A-7 had died. The sentence according to him is liberal.

Law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. C
Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find
answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the
sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness
would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. 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, . D
in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery
or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing
process be stem where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it
warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature
of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive
for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and all other E
attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of
consideration.

Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more ham1
to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of F
law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is,
therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to
the nature of the offence and the manner.in which it was executed or committed
etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal
etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu, AIR (1991) SC 1463.
G
The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality
in prescribing liability 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
H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always
to fit the crime; yet in practice 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 departure from just desert as the basis of
B punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and
widespread.

Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle,
and in spite of e1rnnt notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination
C 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 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
D apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it
is out of proportion to the crime, unifonnly disproportionate punishment has
some very undesirable practical consequences.

After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each
case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence,
E 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 aptly indicated in Dennis Councle
MCGDautha v. State· of Callifomia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no
F 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 of the crime. In the
absence of any foolproof fonnula 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
G the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished.

The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal
in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. It
is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to
H impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the
SIDDARAMA v. STATEOFKARNATAKA [PASAYAT..l.j 283
sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. A
Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order
in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impaCt of the

- crime, e.g. where it relates to offences relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances which have great impact not only on the health fabric but also
on the social order and pub Iic interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se B
require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences
or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time or personal
inconveniences in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter
productive in the long run a~d against societal interest which needs to be
cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing C
,system.

In Dhananjoy Cha11e1jee v. S1a1e of W. 8., [I 994] 2 SCC 220, this Court
has observed that shockingly large number of criminals go unpunished thereby
increasingly, encouraging the criminals and in the ultimate making justice
suffer by weakening the system's creditability. The imposition of appropriate D
punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the society's cry
for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that Courts should impose
punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts refiect public abhorrence
of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal
but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while
considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. (See Union uf India v. E
Ku/deep Singh, (2004] 2 SCC 590, Abu Ram v. Mukna and Ors., (2005] I0 SCC
597 and Shailesh .!aswanthhai V. Stale ofGujarat and Ors.. (2006] 2 sec 359).

The offence committed is certainly gruesome but the State has not
questioned alteration of conviction from Section 307 read with Section 149
IPC to Section 326 read with Section 149 JPC.
F

Considering the background facts it would be appropriate to reduce the
custodial sentence to live years but enhance the fine in respect of each
appellant to Rs.20,000/-. In case the fine amount is not deposited within two
months, the default custodial sentence would be two years. In case the G
amount is deposited, 3/4th of the amount deposited shall be paid to the victim
PW-7 within one .month of the deposit.

With the above modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed:,

B.K. Appeal dismissed. H