Supreme Court Enhances Sentence for Assault and Trespass: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Udham and Others (22 October 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 22 October 2019
The Supreme Court of India, in this case, examined whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was correct in reducing the sentence of the accused in a case involving assault and trespass. The case highlights the importance of detailed reasoning in sentencing and the need to consider the gravity of the offense. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Ajay Rastogi, with the judgment authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

On 15th April 2008, at approximately 9 p.m., the complainant reported that the respondents-accused forcefully entered his house armed with weapons. Respondent nos. 1 and 3 carried axes, while respondent nos. 2 and 4 were armed with sticks. The accused confronted the complainant regarding his untied cow. Following an exhortation by respondent no. 4, the accused attacked the complainant and others present, causing injuries. The accused also threatened the complainant with death if he did not confine his cow.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the respondents-accused under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Section 452 of the IPC. The Trial Court sentenced them to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250 each for the offense under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC and 1 year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250 each for the offense under Section 452 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s decision, the respondents-accused appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, challenging only the quantum of sentence. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone (4 days) while enhancing the fine to Rs. 1500 each. The State, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 326, IPC: Deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states, “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34, IPC: Explains the concept of acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 452, IPC: Deals with house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint. It states, “Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:

• Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh):
  • The High Court did not consider the gravity of the offense and the facts and circumstances of the case.
  • The High Court erred in reducing the sentence, especially considering that the respondents-accused had only undergone 4 days of imprisonment.
• Respondents (Accused):
  • The High Court correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case.
  • The High Court order does not merit any interference from the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence awarded to the respondents-accused, considering the nature of the offense and the facts of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 1: This case was cited to emphasize the importance of reasoned sentencing in the Indian criminal justice system. The court highlighted that sentencing should be a principled exercise of judicial discretion, considering the factual circumstances and equities.
• Yashwant v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2018 SC 4067: This case was referred to distinguish the present case from other objectionable situations such as police atrocities.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section explains the concept of acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.

Judgment

The Supreme Court enhanced the sentence, stating:

• The High Court did not provide a detailed analysis of the facts of the case, the nature of the injuries, the weapons used, and the number of victims.
• The High Court failed to consider the charge under Section 452 of the IPC.
• The High Court’s reasoning was limited to one sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The lack of detailed reasoning by the High Court in reducing the sentence.
• The High Court’s failure to consider the gravity of the offense, the nature of injuries, and the weapons used.
• The High Court’s oversight of the second charge under Section 452 of the IPC.
• The need for sentencing to be a principled exercise of judicial discretion, as emphasized in Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 1.
• The need to balance the facts of the case with the fact that this was the first offense and the motive was trivial.

“Sentencing is appropriate allocation of criminal sanctions, which is mostly given by the judicial branch.”

“The reasoning of the trial court acts as a link between the general level of sentence for the offence committed and to the facts and circumstances.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Sentencing must be based on detailed reasoning, considering all relevant factors.
• Courts must consider the gravity of the offense, the nature of injuries, and the weapons used.
• Sentencing should be a principled exercise of judicial discretion.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing is a crucial aspect of the criminal justice system and should not be taken lightly.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• Respondents nos. 1, 2, and 3 are sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 75,000 each for the offense under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and 3 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000 each for the offense under Section 452 of the IPC.
• Respondent no. 4 is sentenced to 2 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 for the offense under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and 2 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000 for the offense under Section 452 of the IPC.
• The sentences are to run concurrently.
• The respondents are to be taken into custody forthwith to serve their remaining sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that sentencing must be based on detailed reasoning, considering all relevant factors, including the gravity of the offense, the nature of injuries, the weapons used, and the number of victims. This judgment reinforces the principle that sentencing should be a principled exercise of judicial discretion and highlights the importance of reasoned judgments in the criminal justice system. There is no specific change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment emphasizes the need for a more thorough approach to sentencing by lower courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, modifying the High Court’s order by enhancing the sentence of the accused. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for detailed reasoning in sentencing and the importance of considering all relevant factors, including the gravity of the offense. This judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts to approach sentencing with due diligence and a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances of each case.