Surendra And Others
v.
State Of Uttar Pradesh
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1976 | 19-08-1976
BHAGWATI, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is limited only to the question of sentence. The appellants have been convicted of the offence under Section 325 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. We do not see any reason to interfere with this sentence which has been imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court. The imposition of sentence is always a matter of discretion and unless this Court finds that the discretion has been exercised arbitarily or capriciously or on unsound principles or that the Sessions Court or the High Court has not taken into account any relevant factors in imposing the sentence, this Court would not be justified in reducing the sentence, merely because it feels that a lesser sentence, might well have been imposed. Here, in the present case, the appellants and others caused as many as 17 injuries each to Jagdish Prasad and Moti Ram and 8 injuries to Sukhbir Singh and out of them one injury each to Jagdish Prasad and Sukhbir Singh was grievous hurt. It is true that they also in their true received some injuries but these were mostly of a superficial nature.
2. We do not think that in the circumstances we would be justified in interfering with the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court.
3. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.
1. This appeal by special leave is limited only to the question of sentence. The appellants have been convicted of the offence under Section 325 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. We do not see any reason to interfere with this sentence which has been imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court. The imposition of sentence is always a matter of discretion and unless this Court finds that the discretion has been exercised arbitarily or capriciously or on unsound principles or that the Sessions Court or the High Court has not taken into account any relevant factors in imposing the sentence, this Court would not be justified in reducing the sentence, merely because it feels that a lesser sentence, might well have been imposed. Here, in the present case, the appellants and others caused as many as 17 injuries each to Jagdish Prasad and Moti Ram and 8 injuries to Sukhbir Singh and out of them one injury each to Jagdish Prasad and Sukhbir Singh was grievous hurt. It is true that they also in their true received some injuries but these were mostly of a superficial nature.
2. We do not think that in the circumstances we would be justified in interfering with the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court.
3. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.
Advocates List
For
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE P. N. BHAGWATI
HON'BLE JUSTICE SYED M. FAZAL
Eq Citation
1977 CRILJ 351
(1976) 4 SCC 232
(1976) SCC CRI 565
AIR 1977 SC 709
LQ/SC/1976/283
HeadNote
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 325 & 149 — Appeal against sentence — Interference with sentence — Imposition of sentence — Held, is always a matter of discretion — Unless discretion is found to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or on unsound principles or that Sessions Court or High Court has not taken into account any relevant factors in imposing sentence, Supreme Court would not be justified in reducing sentence merely because it feels that a lesser sentence might well have been imposed (Para 1)
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
