Courts Must See That The Public Doesn't Lose Confidence In The Judicial System: SC

It has to be said right at the outset that in a landmark judgment with far reaching consequences, the Supreme Court in its latest landmark judgment titled The State of Rajasthan v Mohan Lal & Another in Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3509 of 2016] delivered on August 1, 2018, minced no words in sending out a clear and categorical message to all courts below that courts must see that the public doesn’t lose confidence in the judicial system. The Apex Court cautioned the courts against casual approach in sentencing. All courts below including all High Courts in India must abide by what the Apex Court has said so explicitly.

Truth be told, while expressing shock about a Rajasthan High Court judgment that had reduced sentence in a criminal case to period already undergone which was only six days, the Supreme Court had observed that imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance. This can never be good for our legal system and for our country. This will also lead to more mob lynching incidents with which our country is already grappling seriously!

To recapitulate, in the instant case, the Sessions Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 IPC and imposed a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 1,000. On appeal by the convicted accused, the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench confirmed the judgment of conviction but reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused, i.e., six days imprisonment only. No wonder that the State had assailed the judgment before the Apex Court.

Be it noted, para 4 of this landmark judgment brings out the intricacies in this landmark case by pointing out that, 'The case of the prosecution in brief is that due to old enmity relating to a land dispute, one Kapurchand was assaulted by the accused; one Phoolchand who intervened in the fight also sustained an injury because of the assault by the accused. As mentioned supra, the accused was tried for the offences under Sections 307 and 326, IPC apart from other offences, but was convicted for the offences under Sections 325 and 323, IPC.'

Going forward, para 5 further brings out that, 'During the course of the trial, the informant (PW1), the injured Kapurchand (PW2) and the second injured Phoolchand (PW5) were examined, apart from other witnesses, including the doctor who treated the injured. The trial court has found the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 consistent, cogent, reliable and trustworthy and proceeded to convict the accused. The doctor fully supported the case of the prosecution. The medical records, including the evidence of the Doctor, conclusively prove that injury no. 1 sustained by PW2 – Kapurchand was a grievous injury, in as much as Kapurchand sustained a fracture of the right parietal bone.'

Not stopping here, para 8 of this landmark judgment further goes on to point out that, 'The Medical Officer of the authorized Primary Health Centre, Kishangarh Renwal, examined the injuries sustained by the two injured, viz. Kapurchand and Phoolchand. While Phoolchand had sustained only one injury of a simple nature, which was inflicted by a blunt object, Kapurchand had sustained two injuries, out of which one was simple and the other was serious. Therefore, Kapurchand was advised to undergo an X-ray. The X-ray report (Exhibit-P4) revealed that his right parietal bone was fractured. The medical report (Exhibit – P1) discloses the injury no. 1 as grievous in nature. The Medical Officer has given his opinion in Exhibit-P5 that the injury no. 1 was life-threatening.'

As it turned out, a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar observed that the High Court simply brushed aside the medical reports which stated that the injuries were grievous and life threatening and sentenced the accused to the period already undergone by him. The High Court should have taken all these factors into consideration before pronouncing its judgment. But it utterly failed in doing so!

Truly speaking, the Bench of Apex Court remarked that, 'Absolutely no reasons, much less valid reasons, are assigned by the High Court to impose the meagre sentence of 6 days. Such imposition of sentence by the High Court shocks the judicial conscience of this Court.' In para 10 it is further observed that, 'Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary. However, the Courts have framed certain guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity.' The Bench further said in this same para that, 'However, this Court has repeatedly held that the courts will have to take into account certain principles while exercising their discretion in sentencing such as proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. It also held that, 'In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness.'

Simply put, while referring to the earlier judgments as for instance Soman v State of Kerala [(2013) 11 SCC 382] and Alister Anthony Pareira v State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648], the Apex Court Bench stated unambiguously and unanimously that, 'The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attendant circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. The Court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, in as much as both the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing process. The Courts must see that the public does not lose confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance.' There can be no denying or disputing it! All courts must always bear it in mind while pronouncing judgments!

Needless to say, even though, the Bench was told that the parties had forgotten their differences and were living peacefully since 25 years, the Bench sentenced the accused to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 25,000. The Bench added that, 'In the matter at hand, it is proved that the victim has sustained a grievous injury on a vital portion of the body, i.e., the head, which was fractured. The doctor has opined that the injury was life threatening. Hence, in our considered opinion, the High Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only which was the period already undergone by the accused in confinement.' Such leniency is totally unwarranted. This is exactly what the Apex Court Bench ruled explicitly in this landmark case!

All said and done, it is the bounden duty of all the courts in India to strictly implement what the 2 Judge Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar have held so explicitly and elegantly in this landmark judgment delivered by them! All Courts must refrain from indulging in unwarranted leniency in pronouncing judgments in heinous crimes as has been directed by the Apex Court. Only then will their judgments serve the true purpose of acting as a potential deterrent for which they are meant also!