Ram Singh vs State Of M.P
- SCC(2011) 14 SCC 563
- AIRAIR 2011 SC Supp 48
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code rests on an injury of very small dimension, and the other injuries occasioned are simple in nature on the hands, and a substantial period of time has elapsed since the incident (here, eighteen years), a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment is excessive and may be reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1453 OF 2011 ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL) NO. 2594 OF 2011
RAM SINGH ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We had issued noticed on the quantum of sentence
only on the 21st of April, 2011 in this matter where a
sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine
has been awarded under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija has put in appearance on
behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. The injuries that had been caused by the appellant
are given herein below:
"(i) incised wound =" X <" on right side below abdomen (illiac cosa)
(ii) incised wound >" X <" muscle deep on right middle palm.
(iii) incised wound 1" X =" muscle deep on right hand above 3" on wrist,
(iv) incised wound 1.5" X <" on left hand thumb and middle in index finger."
5. We see that injury No. 1 is the only injury which
Crl.A. No. of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 2594 of 2011
2
could invite the applicability of Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code. This too is an injury of very small
dimension. The other injuries are on the hand and are
simple in nature. The incident happened in the year 1993
and 18 years have elapsed since then. We, therefore,
feel that the sentence of five years awarded to the
appellant is somewhat excessive. We, partly allow this
appeal and reduce the sentence on the appellant from five
to two years rigorous imprisonment, the other parts of
the sentence being maintained as it is.
.....................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
.....................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
NEW DELHI JULY 18, 2011.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free