Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1961 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2162 of 2012)
JASVIR KAUR .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant along with her husband has been
convicted under Section 420 of the Penal Code and both of them are
sentenced to imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-
with the default sentence of 15 days’ imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
The special leave petition giving rise to the
present appeal was filed both by the present appellant as petitioner
No.1 and her husband - Ginder Singh as petitioner No.2. The
special leave petition at the instance of the husband was dismissed
and in case of the appellant, notice was issued only on the question
of sentence. We, accordingly, proceed to consider the appeal to that
limited extent.
According to the prosecution case Ginder Singh
Page 1
2
who was a Head Constable in the Punjab Police extracted
Rs.70,000/- from the informant Angrej Singh by making the false
promise that he would arrange for a job for him in the Police. The
deal was struck at Rs.1,40,000/-; half of which, i.e., Rs.70,000/- was
to be paid in advance and the balance half, after the employment
was made. It is further the prosecution case that on September 22,
2002, the informant paid Rs.50,000/- to Ginder Singh at his quarter in
the presence of his wife. Ginder Singh took the money and handed it
over to his wife, the present appellant, who counted it before the
informant. A few days later both the accused came to the house of
the informant to collect the balance amount of Rs.20,000/-.
Needless to say that neither any employment was provided to the
informant nor was the money refunded to him.
Both the accused were tried by Judicial
st
Magistrate, 1 Class, Faridkot, who, by his judgment and order dated
JUDGMENT
March 29, 2010, passed in Criminal Case No.543 dated 14-10-2005
(arising out of FIR No.22 dated June 2, 2004), convicted and
sentenced the accused, as noted above.
Their appeal (Criminal Appeal No.75 of
14.10.2005) was dismissed by the judgment and order dated
September 30, 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot and
their revision [(Criminal Revision No.2576 of 2011) (O&M)] was
similarly rejected by the High Court without any modification in the
Page 2
3
conviction or sentence vide judgment dated November 28, 2011.
Coming now to the issue of punishment,
sentencing of the convicted accused which is at the heart of the
administration of criminal justice is both a delicate and difficult task.
1
In Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar Krishna Iyer, J. quoted the English
Judge Henry McCardie as saying “Trying a man is easy, as easy as
falling off a log, compared with deciding what to do with him when he
has been found guilty”. Unfortunately, however, the question of
sentencing does not receive due importance and the requisite
application of mind by the courts. In our country, there is very little
legislative, judicial or any other kind of guidance available to
meaningfully deal with the question of sentencing. The absence of
any guidelines makes the task of the court more difficult and casts a
heavy responsibility on it to calibrate the due punishment that might
be awarded to a convict, taking into consideration all the relevant
JUDGMENT
facts and circumstances. It is, however, regrettable that the courts
hardly give the question of sentencing as much attention and
application of mind as it deserves. The present is a case in point.
As seen above, both the accused, the wife and the husband have
been found guilty of cheating and both of them have been given the
same punishment, i.e., imprisonment for two years and a fine of
Rs.2,000/-. Though, both the accused, the wife and the husband are
convicted for the same offence, it does not necessarily follow that
1 (1977)4 SCC 44
Page 3
4
they should be punished in the same way. What seems to have been
overlooked is their relative role in the commission of the offence.
From the prosecution case and the evidence of
witnesses it is evident that the primary role in the commission of the
offence was of Ginder Singh, the husband, and the wife (the present
appellant) had only a subsidiary role. It also needs to be kept in mind
that she is a woman. In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellant
deserves a lesser punishment than the other accused, her husband
who played the main role in the commission of the offence.
In light of the discussion made above, we are of
the view that a sentence of one year imprisonment to the appellant
would meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly, modify and reduce
her sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year leaving the
fine undisturbed.
The appeal is allowed to the limited extent, as
JUDGMENT
indicated above.
…….,….…………...................J
(Aftab Alam)
……………………..................J
(Ranjana Prakash Desai)
New Delhi;
November 26, 2012.
Page 4