Supreme Court Enhances Sentence in Criminal Assault Case: Emphasizes Proper Sentencing

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Udham & Others, where it enhanced the sentence awarded to the respondents-accused who were convicted under Sections 326 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolved around an incident where the respondents forcibly entered the complainant’s house and attacked multiple individuals using axes and sticks, causing severe injuries.

The case was initially tried in the Trial Court, which sentenced the respondents to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (4 days) while enhancing the fine to Rs. 1,500 per accused. Aggrieved by this, the State of Madhya Pradesh approached the Supreme Court, challenging the reduced sentence.

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh)

The learned counsel for the State contended that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense while reducing the sentence. The counsel argued that the act of the respondents was brutal, as they barged into the complainant’s house, used weapons, and inflicted serious injuries. The State emphasized that awarding only a 4-day sentence in such a serious crime undermines the principles of justice.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents’ counsel defended the High Court’s ruling, asserting that the sentence reduction was appropriate given that this was the respondents’ first offense. They maintained that the High Court had correctly considered the circumstances and did not warrant any interference from the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Ajay Rastogi, disagreed with the High Court’s lenient approach. The Court emphasized that:

• Sentencing should be proportional to the gravity of the crime and should deter future offenses.
• The High Court failed to analyze the nature of the injuries, weapons used, and the victims involved.
• The respondents-accused were convicted under two serious IPC provisions – Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons) and Section 452 (house trespass after preparation for assault).

The Court observed:

“A large number of cases are being filed before this Court due to insufficient or wrong sentencing undertaken by lower courts. We have time and again cautioned against the cavalier manner in which sentencing is dealt with.”

Enhanced Sentencing by the Supreme Court

After considering all factors, the Supreme Court modified the sentence as follows:

• For the offense under Section 326 IPC, respondents 1, 2, and 3 were sentenced to three months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 75,000 each, failing which they would undergo another three months of simple imprisonment.
• For the offense under Section 452 IPC, respondents 1, 2, and 3 were sentenced to three months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000 each, failing which they would undergo another three months of simple imprisonment.
• For respondent 4, who was around 80 years old, the Court sentenced him to two months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 under Section 326 IPC, and two months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000 under Section 452 IPC.

The sentences were to run concurrently, and the respondents were directed to be taken into custody immediately.

Conclusion

This judgment highlights the importance of proportional sentencing and the need for courts to carefully assess the gravity of the crime before awarding lenient sentences. The Supreme Court reinforced that criminal sanctions should act as deterrents and ensure justice for the victims. The ruling serves as a precedent emphasizing that wrongful sentencing by lower courts must be rectified to maintain public trust in the justice system.

Petitioner Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Udham and Others.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 22-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Madhya Prad vs Udham and Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-10-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Theft and Robbery Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category