Skip to main content

Courts should impose punishment befitting crime: SC

Befitting punishment should be awarded by courts to the guilty so that "public abhorrence" of the offence committed is reflected, the Supreme Court has said.

"The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. Law courts have been consistent in the approach that a reasonable proportion has to be maintained between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment.

"While it is true that sentence disproportionately severe should not be passed that does not clothe the court with an option to award the sentence manifestly inadequate. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime," a bench comprising justices T S Thakur and R Banumathi said.

The observations came while hearing an appeal filed by Haryana native Ravinder Singh who had approached the apex court against Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement by which it had reduced the sentence imposed on six persons who had assaulted his father.

According to the prosecution, on August 4, 1993, while Sher Singh was returning home from bus station of his village Devsar with his elder brother Duli Chand, six persons-- Pyare Lal, Ramesh, Surender, Raj Kumar, Manphool and Narender-- assaulted Duli Chand with sticks due to which he sustained grievous injuries.

Later, Duli was taken to general Hospital in Bhiwani where he slipped in coma and succumbed to injuries on August 9, 1993.

The trial court had convicted all the six persons under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of IPC and sentenced them to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the judgment, the accused approached High Court which reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by each of them and also imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 each.

The apex court, which refused to interfere with High Court's decision, enhanced the compensation to the family and directed them to pay Rs 1,25,000 each along with additional fine of Rs 1 lakh each.

"As far as the award of compensation is concerned, particularly in the case of homicidal death, monetary benefits cannot be equated with the life of a person and the society?s cry for justice. Object is just to mitigate hardship that is caused to the deceased," the bench said.

Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/courts-should-impose-punishment-befitting-crime-sc_1632468.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...