1. Notice in the special leave petition was confined to the question of sentence. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.

2. In this case, the High Court has rightly upheld the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding the respondent guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for causing the death of the deceased Sher Singh, but has manifestly erred in reducing the sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the period already undergone by the respondent i.e. a period of about 10 months and pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000 by way of compensation to the heirs of the deceased, or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Such reduction of sentence was wholly unjustified and has caused flagrant miscarriage of justice.

3. While it is true that the respondent had dealt a solitary blow with a lathi on the head of the deceased in the heat of the moment, without premeditation and after a sudden fight and under those circumstances there was nothing to prove that he had intended to cause the death of the deceased but could only be attributed with knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause his death and therefore he could only be liable under Section 304 Part II, there was no justification for substituting monetary compensation in lieu of substantive sentence. It is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment and to allow the respondent to escape with payment of a fine of Rs. 10, 000 will deprive the law of its effectiveness and result in travesty of justice. Such drastic reduction in sentence in murder case apart from creating law and order problems would be repugnant to the basic concepts of criminal justice. In dealing with a sentence which has been made the subject of an appeal, the court will interfere with a sentence only where it is erroneous in principle. The fact that the respondent acted in a heat of passion without any intention to cause the death of the deceased was a sufficient ground for a lesser punishment, but it could not be a ground for remitting the entire sentence and substituting it with a fine. The High Court failed to appreciate the desirability of imposing a proper punishment as a measure of social necessity, as a means of deterring other potential offenders.

4. We accordingly set aside the sentence passed by the High Court and instead sentence the respondent to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. With the enhancement in the substantive sentence, we reduce the amount of fine from Rs. 10, 000 to Rs. 5, 000 or in default, direct that the respondent shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the sentence passed by the High Court is modified as indicated above. The respondent shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.