SURJIT SINGHversusNAHARA RAM AND ANR.

A                               SURJIT SINGH
                                        v.
                         NAHARA RAM AND ANR.

                               AUGUST 5, 2004

B              [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]

       Criminal Law-Appropriate sentence-Award of-General princi-
  ples-Held: There should be adherence to the principle ofproportionality
  according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct-It allows
C some significant discretion to the judge in awarding a sentence in each
  case-But undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more
  harm to justice system-Therefore, Court must award proper sentence
  having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was
  committed-On facts, High Court not justified in reducing custodial
D sentence-Enhanced fine having been paid, custodial sentenced reduced
  to 18 months-Out of the fine Rs. 10,000 be paid to the appellant-
  Directions issued-Penal Code, 1860-Section 306-Arms Act, 1959-
  Section 27.

         On the allegation that the respondent-accused fired several shots
E   resulting in injuries to the appellant, trial court convicted the respond-
    ent under section 326 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced
    him to five years rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. 2000 with default
    stipulation and one year rigorous imprisonment under Arms Act. On
    appeal, High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to
F   the period of custodial sentence already undergone. However, it
    enhanced the fine to Rs. 25,000. Hence the present appeals.

         Appellant-informant contended that in view of the nature of the
    injuries sustained, High Court should have interfered with the sen-
G   tence; and that the High Court has not indicated any reason to justify
    the reduction of custodial sentence.

         Allowing the appeals, the Court

         HELD : 1.1. Criminal law adheres in general to the principle of
H proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of
                                       356
                         SURJIT SINGH v. NAHARA RAM                       357

       each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant A
       discretion to the judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presum-
       ably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of
       culpability that are raised by special facts of each case. Judges in
       essence affirms that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in
       practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations like B
       the correctional needs of perpetrator, desirability of keeping him out of
       circulation, tragic results of his crime which inevitably cause a departure
       from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases ofapparent
       injustice that are serious and widespread. Undue sympathy to impose
       inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to C
       undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could
       not long endure under such serious threats. Therefore, 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 committed. [359-D-E; 359-F-H]

            1.2. In the instant case, taking into account the facts and the D
       principle oflaw, High Court was not justified in reducing the custodial
       sentence. Further, in view of the enhanced fine as imposed by High
       Court having been paid, the custodial sentence is fixed at eighteen
       months. Out of the fine deposited, a sum of Rs. 10,000 shall be paid
       to the appellant. [360-B-CJ                                             E
            State of MP. v. Ghanshyam singh, [2003] 8 SCC 13, referred to.

            Law in changing society by Friedman, referred to.

            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.               F
       799-800 of 2004.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.2003 of the Punjab &
       Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 81-SB of 1992.

             Amar Vivek, Jasbir Singh Malik and Ms. Kamakshi and S. Mehlwal     G
       for the Appellant.

           Ajay Bansal, Addi. Adv. Genl., C.L. Sahu, Amit Yadav and Bimal
       Roy lad for the Respondents .
....
            The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by                           H
    358                SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted.

        The present appeals are by the informant against the respondents
  (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). Law was set into motion by the
  appellant alleging that while he was spraying his paddy crop in his field,
B the accused had fired several shots resulting in major or minor injuries to
  him. The accused was charged for alleged commission of offence punish-
  able under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter called
  the 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms A~t, 1959 (in short the 'Amrs Act').
  The learned Additional Sessions Judge, .Barnala found the accused guilty
  of offence punishable under Section 326 !PC and Section 27 of the Arms
C Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years
  and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 with default stipulation for the offence
  relatable to Section 326 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous
  imprisonment for one year in respect of the offences under the Arms Act.
  The matter was carried in appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High
D Court by the accused. The appellant also filed a Criminal Revision under
  Section 397 read with Section401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  (in short the 'Code'). Appeal was numbered as Cr!. A. N. 81 SB of 1992
  and the Criminal Revision was numbered as Cr!. Rev. 580of1992. Both
  the appeal and the revision have been disposed of by the common judgment
E which is impugned in the present appeals. The High Court while upholding
  the conviction reduced the sentence to the period of custodial sentence
   already undergone. The fine was, however, enhanced to Rs. 25,000.

          In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
    that looking at the nature of the injuries sustained, the High Court should
F   have interfered with the sentence, more particularly when the accused had
    undergone only 63 days of custodial sentence. Moreover, the High Court
    has not indicated any reason to justify the reduction of custodial sentence.

          In response, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the High
    Court has indicated sufficient basis for reduction of the custodial sentence.
G   It had, in fact, noted that at the time of hearing of the appeal by the High
    Court, the accused was nearly 60 years of age and since the accused and
    the informant are co-villagers it would have bed effect so far as the peace
    in the village is concerned and enmity in the families is likely to increase    ....
    further if he is sent back to custody. The purpose of criminal law justice
H   system is not only to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society,
          SURJIT SINGH v. NAHARA RAM [PASAYAT, J.]                     359

but also is it give opportunity to erring individual to refonn himself. The A
fine of Rs. 25,000 has already been deposited.

      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 B
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 undennine 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 C
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". Therefore, in operating the
sentencing system, law should adopt the correctivfl machinery or the D
deterrence based on factual matrix.

      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 E
having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was
executed or committed etc.

      The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality
in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal F
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 rnised by the
special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought
always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are detennined largely by
other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpe- G
trator 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 punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are
serious and widespread.                                                        H
    360               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         These aspects were highlighted by this Court in State of MP. v.
    Ghanshyam Singh, [2003] 8 SCC 13.

        When the factual scenario as noted by the trial court, and the
  principles of law as noted above are considered, the inevitable conclusion
B is that the High Court was not justified in reducing the custodial sentence.
        Taking into account the enhanced fine as imposed by the High Court
  which admittedly have been paid it would be appropriate to fix the
  custodial sentence at eighteen months. The accused respondent No. 1 sha!l
  surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence. The
C custodial sentence has been fixed taking note of the peculiar fact of the
  case. Out of the fine deposited a sum of Rs. I 0,000 shall be paid to the
  appellant.

          The appeals are allowed.
D N.J.                                                      Appeals allowed.