State of Madhya Pradesh vs Suresh
1991 (2) SCC 217
FACTS:
1. The respondent, Suresh, was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for causing the death of his father, Tulsiram.
2. On 13.05.1996, at around 4:30 p.m., the respondent assaulted his father with a blunt object, causing a fatal injury to the skull. The victim succumbed to the injuries later that evening at Betul Hospital.
3. Initially, the respondent claimed that the injury occurred accidentally when his father fell from the roof. However, eyewitnesses, including PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4, testified that the respondent had intentionally assaulted his father with a wooden stick (lathi).
4. Based on these testimonies, the respondent was arrested on 20.05.1996, and an FIR was registered under Crime No. 120/1996.
5. The Trial Court convicted the respondent under Section 304 Part II IPC, finding that the act was not premeditated and was done without the intention to kill, and sentenced him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment. The court also noted that the period of detention already undergone (from 20.05.1996 to 09.09.1996) would be set off against the sentence.
6. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from 3 years to the period already undergone (3 months and 21 days), considering factors such as the respondent's young age (26 years), the incident occurring in the heat of the moment, and the fact that the respondent had already served a significant period in detention.
ISSUE:
The primary issue for determination in this appeal is:
Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence awarded by the Trial Court from 3 years of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the respondent, i.e., 3 months and 21 days?
SEC. OF LAW APPLICABLE:
1. Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and provides for punishment up to life imprisonment or a term of imprisonment that may extend to 10 years.
2. Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – This section deals with the punishment for causing disappearance of evidence or obstructing the police in the course of an investigation. The respondent was initially charged under this section but was not convicted for it, given his conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.
JUDGMENT:
The Trial Court convicted the respondent under Section 304 Part II IPCfor causing the death of his father, Tulsiram, by intentionally assaulting him. The Trial Court awarded a sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment, considering the nature of the offence and the facts of the case.
In the appeal, the High Court modified the sentence, reducing it to the period already undergone by the respondent (3 months and 21 days), based on factors such as:
o The respondent being 26 years old at the time of the incident.
o The incident having occurred in a moment of provocation (the respondent acted “at the spur of the moment”).
o The fact that the respondent had already undergone significant detention.
State of Madhya Pradesh appealed the High Court's decision, arguing that the reduction of the sentence was unjustified and that the High Court had failed to adequately consider the seriousness of the offence.
The Supreme Court observed that while the High Court had validly upheld the conviction, the reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone was not justified. The Court emphasized the importance of proportionality in sentencing and reiterated the principle that undue leniency in sentencing could undermine the public's confidence in the justice system.
The Court referred to the case of State of M.P. v. Ganshyam (2003) 8 SCC 13, which underlined that sentencing must reflect the severity of the crime and that undue sympathy leading to an inadequate sentence would be detrimental to justice.
The Supreme Court held that the sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court was appropriate and should be restored, as it was in line with the seriousness of the offence and the societal need for deterrence.
Conclusion: The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 27.11.2012 is set aside, and the sentence of the Trial Court dated 06.01.1998 is restored. The respondent is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 4 weeks from the date of this judgment to serve the remaining part of his sentence. In case the respondent fails to surrender, the Trial Court will take appropriate steps to ensure the respondent serves the remaining part of the sentence.
Comments