Summary
In a 1988 road-rage incident at Patiala, the first respondent, then a 25-year-old international cricketer, pulled a 65-year-old man out of his car and struck him with his fist; the victim died the same day. After acquittal by the trial court and conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC by the High Court, the Supreme Court in 2018 convicted him only under Section 323 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000 without imprisonment. On the complainant's review petition, in which notice had been confined to the question of sentence, the Court declined to reopen the conviction but held that material aspects — the accused's physical fitness as a sportsman, the victim's age and the fatal consequence of the blow — had been lost sight of at sentencing, an error apparent on the face of the record. It added a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment to the fine.
Issues
- Whether, on a review petition in which notice was limited to the question of sentence, the Court should enlarge its scope to reconsider the conviction under Section 323 IPC in light of Richpal Singh Meena v. Ghasi and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab.
- Whether a victim may seek enhancement of sentence by way of review, and whether imposing only a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 323 IPC on a physically fit young sportsman whose fist blow to the head of a 65-year-old man resulted in death was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting a sentence of imprisonment.
Provisions considered
- Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt: imprisonment up to one year, or fine up to Rs. 1,000, or both), Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction under Section 323 was left undisturbed, but the sentence of fine alone was held manifestly inadequate having regard to the accused's physical fitness, the defenceless 65-year-old victim and the foreseeable consequence of a severe blow to the head; one year's rigorous imprisonment was imposed in addition to the fine. (¶¶ 19, 20, 24, 32, 33, 38, 40)
- Sections 372 proviso and 377 (appeals by victim and by State against sentence); review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The objection that a victim's remedy is confined to appeals against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation, and that only the State may appeal against inadequate sentence, was repelled; the victim's rights are substantive and independent (Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra) and the victim may be heard on enhancement of sentence in review. (¶¶ 22, 29, 30, 36)
Held
- The scope of the review is not enlarged beyond sentence: the evidence had been analysed in detail to find that only a single bare-handed blow landed on the head of the deceased in a spontaneous fight over right of way, with no weapon and no past enmity, and re-assessing the merits of a 34-year-old case would subvert the foundations of the criminal justice system. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Material aspects were missed at sentencing: the respondent was an international cricketer, tall, well built and aware of the force his hand could carry; the blow was inflicted on a 65-year-old man more than double his age; the hand itself can be a weapon when wielded by a boxer, wrestler, cricketer or extremely fit person. The Court had already been indulgent in convicting him only of simple hurt; mere passage of time cannot make a fine of Rs. 1,000 adequate where a person lost his life from the severity of the blow. This is an error apparent on the face of the record, not a case of two possible views. (¶¶ 24, 38, 39)
- Sentencing must maintain a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment; while a disproportionately severe sentence must not be passed, courts cannot award a manifestly inadequate sentence, which fails to deter and undermines public confidence in the law. Protection of society and deterrence are the avowed objects of sentencing (State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa), alongside reform and proportionality; just punishment is the collective cry of society (Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand). (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Victimology requires the trial to be viewed from the victim's perspective as well; the victim's rights under the amended CrPC are substantive and independent of the State's, and a disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates the victim and erodes faith in the system. Unintended consequences reasonably foreseeable by the offender attract aggravated culpability (Soman v. State of Kerala), and long lapse of time since the incident is no ground for a disproportionate and inadequate sentence; the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim is a relevant factor. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
Result
Review petitions partly allowed; the sentence imposed on the first respondent under Section 323 IPC by the judgment of 15.05.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2007 enhanced by adding one year's rigorous imprisonment to the fine of Rs. 1,000; the prayer to enlarge the review to the conviction rejected. Parties to bear their own costs.