Supreme Court Enhances Sentence for Simple Hurt in 1988 Road Rage Case: Jaswinder Singh vs. Navjot Singh Sidhu (2022)

Date of the Judgment: May 19, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 477

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Can a court enhance a sentence in a review petition, even after a considerable time has passed since the original judgment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a review petition concerning a 1988 road rage incident. The court considered the need for proportionate sentencing and the victim’s rights, ultimately enhancing the sentence for simple hurt. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, with the opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR filed on December 27, 1988, at P.S. Kotwali, Patiala, Punjab. The informant, Jaswinder Singh, reported that he, along with Avtar Singh (PW-3 and PW-4), and the deceased, Gurnam Singh, were traveling in a car driven by Gurnam Singh when a dispute arose with the accused, Navjot Singh Sidhu (respondent No. 1), and another person (respondent No. 2) at a traffic light. According to the informant, respondent No. 1 pulled Gurnam Singh out of his car and inflicted fist blows. When the informant tried to intervene, respondent No. 2 also allegedly assaulted him. The accused then fled the scene, and Gurnam Singh was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead.

A post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Jatinder Kumar Sadana (PW-2). While the injuries were found to be ante-mortem and caused by a blunt weapon, the cause of death was initially reserved pending a pathologist’s report. The pathologist’s report, dated January 9, 1989, noted heart abnormalities but no brain pathology. PW-2 then requested a referral to a Forensic Expert, leading to the formation of a Medical Board. However, the board’s opinion was cryptic. A chargesheet was filed on July 14, 1989, against respondent No. 2, while respondent No. 1 was initially exonerated. During the trial, respondent No. 1 was summoned by the Sessions Court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Additionally, a private complaint was filed against both accused.

The trial court acquitted both accused on September 22, 1999, stating that the death was due to a cardiac arrest under stress, leading to a fall and subsequent subdural hemorrhage. The High Court, however, convicted respondent No. 1 under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and respondent No. 2 under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as Section 323 of the IPC. The Supreme Court, in its initial judgment, found respondent No. 1 guilty of causing simple hurt under Section 323 of the IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000, while acquitting respondent No. 2.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted both accused, stating that the death was due to cardiac arrest under stress, leading to a fall and subsequent subdural hemorrhage. The High Court, in separate appeals by the State and the complainant, convicted respondent No.1 under Section 304 Part II of the IPC based on the testimony of doctors (PW-1 and PW-2). They stated the cause of death was cardiac failure, but the subdural hemorrhage caused the death, not the cardiac arrest. Respondent No. 2 was held guilty under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as Section 323 of the IPC. The Supreme Court initially analyzed the High Court judgment, finding the witnesses trustworthy. However, the Supreme Court disagreed that the death was caused by subdural hemorrhage and not cardiac arrest. It concluded that the death’s cause was uncertain, no weapon was used, and it was a result of a spontaneous brawl, thus holding respondent No. 1 guilty of simple hurt under Section 323 of the IPC and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000. The Court acquitted respondent No. 2.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which states:

“323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

The judgment also references Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), though the final conviction was under Section 323 of the IPC. The Court also considered the principles of sentencing, proportionality, and victimology. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was also referred to, specifically Section 319 (power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence) and Section 377 (appeal by the State Government against sentence).

Arguments

Arguments by the Complainant:

• The complainant argued that the sentence imposed under Section 323 of the IPC was not in line with sentencing principles. The complainant relied on the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State [(2014) 4 SCC 375], stating that both aggravating and mitigating factors must be considered when deciding on a sentence.
• The complainant contended that the sentence should be proportionate to the offense and should act as a deterrent. Leniency should not be shown when a hurt/injury results in death, and delays not attributable to the complainant should not be a consideration.
• The complainant emphasized that respondent No. 1 was a young, physically fit international cricketer at the time of the incident, who should have known the potential consequences of his actions, especially against a 65-year-old man.
• The complainant argued that the delay of 34 years cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the delay was not attributable to the complainants or the victims, and that the Court should not ignore or overlook the question whether the homicide is culpable or not but merely treat the case as one of voluntarily causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 or Section 326 of the IPC.
• The complainant also relied on the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Supreme Court in Richpal Singh Meena v. Ghasi [(2014) 8 SCC 918] and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [1958 SCR 1495] to argue that the case may fall within Section 300 (thirdly) of the IPC.

Arguments by Respondent No. 1:

• Respondent No. 1 argued that a review petition on the quantum of sentence was not maintainable. He relied on Parvinder Kansal v. State of NCT [2020 SCCOnline SC 685] and Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2019) 2 SCC 752], stating that a victim’s right to appeal should be limited to acquittal, conviction for a lesser offense, or inadequate compensation, but not the quantum of sentence.
• Respondent No. 1 contended that a fine was adequate, without any incarceration, given the prolonged time since the incident. He cited Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2015) 3 SCC 449] to support this view.
• Respondent No. 1 emphasized that the incident was 34 years old, stemming from a dispute over the right of way, and that the case had already undergone several stages of scrutiny. Re-assessing the merits would be subversive of the criminal justice system.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the sentence imposed – a fine of Rs. 1,000 – was adequate, considering the factual scenario and principles of sentencing.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered the principles of sentencing as discussed in Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State [(2014) 4 SCC 375], emphasizing that both aggravating and mitigating factors must be considered.
• The Court distinguished the cases cited by the respondent, such as Parvinder Kansal v. State of NCT [2020 SCCOnline SC 685] and Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2019) 2 SCC 752], noting that the victim’s right to appeal against inadequate sentence was a relevant consideration.
• The Court rejected the reliance on Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2015) 3 SCC 449], stating that a fine was not adequate in the present case given the facts.
• The Court relied on Jai Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1999) 5 SCC 1] to emphasize that punishments are not just for retribution but also to have a deterrent effect on society.
• The Court also relied on Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh [(2014) 7 SCC 323] to highlight that the courts must protect the injured to prevent private vengeance.
• The Court cited Ravji v. State of Rajasthan [(1996) 2 SCC 175] to emphasize that punishment should be consistent with the atrocity of the crime.
• The Court referenced State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa [(2000) 4 SCC 75] to underscore that the protection of society and deterring the criminal is the purpose of law.
• The Court cited Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 7 SCC 77] to highlight that the sentence should make the accused realize the social impact of their crime.
• The Court relied on Rattiram v. State of M.P. [(2012) 4 SCC 516] to emphasize that victim’s rights have to be equally protected.
• The Court cited Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [(2013) 7 SCC 545] to state that just punishment is the collective cry of the society and that the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be brushed aside.
• The Court relied on Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2012 SC 3802] to emphasize the twin objective of the sentencing policy as deterrence and correction.
• The Court relied on Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 453] to emphasize the victim’s right to be heard.
• The Court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.579/2022) to frown upon the tendency of courts to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.
• The Court relied on Soman v. State of Kerala [(2013) 11 SCC 382] to discuss the sentencing decisions based on various different rationales, including proportionality and deterrence.
• The Court referred to Payne v. Tennessee [501 US 808 (1991)], Booth v. Maryland [482 U.S. 496 (1987)] and Snyder v. Massachusetts [291 US 97 (1934)] to emphasize the importance of considering the victim’s perspective in sentencing.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to enhance the sentence was primarily influenced by several factors, including the need for proportionate sentencing, the physical disparity between the accused and the victim, and the importance of victimology. The Court noted that the respondent, an international cricketer, was physically fit and aware of the potential impact of his blows, especially on an elderly person. The Court also emphasized that the sentence should not only be retributive but also act as a deterrent to prevent similar incidents. The Court highlighted that the victim’s rights are substantive and enforceable and cannot be overlooked in the sentencing process. The Court also noted that the passage of time should not be a ground to award a disproportionate and inadequate punishment. The Court stated that a disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates a victim of crime, and indifference to the rights of the victim is eroding faith in the criminal justice system.

The Court also observed that the hand can also be a weapon by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicts the same. The Court also observed that the unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful consideration of the facts, the law, and the principles of justice. It emphasized that justice must be balanced and that the rights of the victim must also be given due consideration. The Court’s reasoning can be summarized in the following quotes:

“The question is whether even on sentence, mere passage of time can result in a fine of Rs.1,000/- being the end of the matter, more so when the factual scenario is such that a man lost his life in the course of a brawl. The answer to this question has to be in the negative.”

“The hand can also be a weapon by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicts the same.”

“A disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates a victim of crime, and indifference to the rights of the victim is eroding faith in the criminal justice system.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jaswinder Singh vs. Navjot Singh Sidhu (2022) is a landmark judgment that reinforces the importance of proportionate sentencing and victimology in criminal jurisprudence. By enhancing the sentence for simple hurt, the Court has sent a strong message that the physical fitness and social status of the accused cannot be a ground for leniency when a victim has suffered harm. The judgment also highlights the need to consider the victim’s rights and the impact of the crime on their life. The Court’s decision underscores that justice must be balanced and that the rights of the victim must be given due consideration. The Court has held that the passage of time cannot be a ground to award a disproportionate and inadequate punishment. The Court has also clarified that a review petition for enhancement of sentence is maintainable, especially considering victim’s rights. The Court has opined that the twin objectives of sentencing policy are deterrence and correction, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing a convict is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. This case serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving sentencing for simple hurt and other offenses, emphasizing the need for a holistic and balanced approach to criminal justice.