Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. In the present case, it is clear that there is no detailed analysis of the facts of the case, the nature of the injuries caused, the weapons used, the number of victims, etc. given by the High Court in the impugned order. The High Court while sentencing the accused, has not taken into consideration the second charge proved against the respondents-accused herein, under Section 452 of IPC.Even the fact that the respondents- accused had only undergone sentence of 4 days at the time of passing of the impugned order, brings into question the High Court pointing to the same as a reason for reducing their sentence. As such, the order of the High Court merits interference by this Court.
11. We are of the opinion that a large number of cases are being filed before this Court, due to insufficient or wrong sentencing undertaken by the Courts below. We have time and again cautioned against the cavalier manner in which sentencing is dealt in certain cases. There is no gainsaying that the aspect of sentencing should not be taken for granted, as this part of Criminal Justice System has determinative impact on the society. In light of the same, we are of the opinion that we need to provide further clarity on the same.
12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test.Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, anti-social or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defense, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial, disagreement by a judge in the appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).
13. Additionally, we may note that under the crime test, seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv) privacy breach.
14. Coming to the appropriate sentence which is to be imposed on the respondents-accused in this case, the facts of this case need closer scrutiny. The respondents-accused entered the house of the complainant, attacked the others present with axes and with sticks. Four people, including the complainant, were injured. The injuries caused were incised wounds on the hands and backs of the victims, an incised wound next to the ear of one of the victims and bruising, etc. The respondents-accused were convicted for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, or of imprisonment of a term which may extend to ten years, and fine. They were also convicted under Section 452 of IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years along with fine.
15. The respondents-accused herein were males of age 33 years, 33 years, 28 years and 70 years respectively at the time of the incident. The main allegation as against the respondent nos. 1 and 3 is that they had used an axe to attack the victim. In this scuffle there is no dispute that some of the respondents-accused herein were also injured profusely. Further the motivation seems to be that the cow belonging to the victims had entered the household of the accused and the respondent no. 1 with his co-accused are proved to be the aggressor herein. From the perusal of the record, the injuries on some of the victims are not specifically attributed. The respondent group was numerically matched with that of the victims and there were two respondents-accused within the group carrying lathis.The bodily integrity was compromised as a result of the injury caused, but there was no evidence led to indicate any permanent embellishments of any part. The scope of intrusion of privacy due to the assault is also minimal. There was no material destruction involved in the crime.
16. In this context, we need to note that the facts of the case highlighted above, however, need to be balanced with the fact that this was the first offence committed by the respondents-accused and that the motive, which is stated to be trivial. There is a requirement to treat the crime committed herein differently than other objectionable situations STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDHAM AND OTHERS [N. V. RAMANA, J.] such as police atrocities etc. [refer to Yashwant v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2018 SC 4067] Having regard to the fact that the occurrence of the crime is of the year 2008 and the respondents-accused have been,in a way, only ordered to undergo four days of jail term with a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, we need to enhance the same to commensurate with the guilt of the respondents-accused.
17. Comparatively, having perused certain precedents of this Court, we are of the considered opinion and accordingly direct that for the commission of the offence under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC,the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand Only) eachwithin a period of 1 month,on default of payment of which they are to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence under Section 452 of IPC,the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand Only) each within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which they are to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.
18. For the offence under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, the respondent no. 4, who is presently aged around 80 years, is sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which he is to suffer simple imprisonment for1 month.For the offence under Section 452 of IPC,respondent no. 4 is sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which he is to suffer simple imprisonment for1 month.
19. The above sentences are to run concurrently. Further, therespondents are directed to be taken into custody forthwith, to serve out their remaining sentence, as imposed hereinabove.
20. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is modifiedin the afore-stated terms. Divya Pandey Appeal partly allowed.