The Supreme Court said on Thursday that ‘the hand can also be a weapon when a cricketer or extremely physically fit person inflicts the same’, noting that a disproportionately light sentence humiliates and frustrates a crime victim when the perpetrator goes unpunished or is released with a relatively light punishment.
The comments of a bench of judges AM Khanwilkar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul came as they granted a review request on the issue of the sentence against Navjot Singh Sidhu in a three-decade-old traffic dispute and sentenced him to a year in prison.
“The hand can also be a weapon in itself, for example if a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer inflicts the same thing, or an extremely physically fit person. This can be understood when a blow can be given by a physically fit person or to a more elderly person.As far as the injury caused, this Court has accepted the plea that a single blow with the hand be given to the head of the deceased.In our opinion, it is this meaning that is an error visible on the face of the deceased. record that needs some corrective action,” the court said.
The Court noted that sentences are not awarded because an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth must be, but because it affects society; while excessive harshness is not required but inadequate punishment can lead to the suffering of the community in general.
The blow was not dealt to a physically identical person, but to a 65-year-old person, more than double his age and Sidhu cannot say he did not know the effect of the blow or plead ignorance on this aspect, the court noted. on. †
“It is not that anyone should remind him of the extent of the injury that could be caused by a blow he inflicted. In the circumstances the mood may have been lost, but then the consequences of the loss of temper must be dealt with. In fact, this Court had been lenient to some extent in ultimately finding Defendant No. 1 (Sidhu) guilty of a crime of simple pain under Article 323 of the IPC.The question is whether even by judgment the mere passing of the time can result in a fine of Rs 1,000 which is an adequate punishment when a person has lost their life due to the severity of the blow dealt by Respondent No. 1 with his hands,” the court said.
“For example, a disproportionately light sentence humiliates and frustrates a crime victim when the offender goes unpunished or receives a relatively light sentence because the system pays no attention to the feelings of the injured person. Indifference to the rights of the victim of a crime is rapidly erode the trust of society in general and the victim of crime in particular in the criminal justice system’, the Court said.
“Indifference to the rights of crime victims quickly erodes the trust of society in general and crime victims in particular in the criminal justice system,” the Court said.
The Court also cited an old quote that says it reflects the aspects of conviction and victimization. The Court said that the old quote means that according to Dharmashastra, the person who does justice should prescribe a penance befitting the age, time and strength of the sinner, the penance is such that he does not lose his life and yet he can be purified . An atonement that causes suffering should not be prescribed.
“We don’t explain much about how the investigation initially went, how the court had to intervene to ensure that the individuals involved are charged, the manner in which the evidence is presented, the hesitation of doctors who all weighed in in this court who believed that a case outside reasonable doubt can only be of one under Section 323 of the IPC. We believe that the indulgence did not need to be shown at the stage of punishment by merely imposing a fine and letting the defendant go without any imposition of punishment,” the court said.
The Court also said that the present case is not a case in which two positions are possible, so that:
assessment may not be exercised. It is a case where some relevant facts for the sentencing seem to have been lost sight of while only a fine was imposed on Respondent No. 1 (Sidhu) and therefore there is no choice between two possible positions.
The result of the foregoing is that the requests for review/applications are honored to the aforementioned extent and that, in addition to the fine imposed, we deem it appropriate to impose a prison sentence of one year to be served by the defendant. No.1 (Sidhu). The parties must bear their own costs.”