where wrong inferences of law have been drawn from facts proved before the Courts or where the conclusions drawn by the High Court are perverse and based on no evidence whatsoeve

Supreme Court of India
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Author: .....J.
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra
 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
Sushil Ansal Appellant
 Versus
State Through CBI Respondent
(With Crl. Appeals No.598/2010, 599/2010, 600-602/2010, 604/2010, 605-
616/2010 and 617-627/2010)

207. We have, in the earlier part of this judgment, while dealing with Question No.I, examined the scope of criminal appeals by special leave and observed that this Court may interfere in such appeals only where wrong inferences of law have been drawn from facts proved before the Courts or where the conclusions drawn by the High Court are perverse and based on no evidence whatsoever. The scope of interference by this Court with the quantum of punishment awarded by the High Court is also similarly limited to cases where the sentence awarded is manifestly inadequate and where the Court considers such reduced punishment to be tantamount to failure of justice. This can be best illustrated by reference to cases in which this Court has interfered to either enhance the punishment awarded by the High Court or remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh order on the subject.
208. In Sham Sunder v. Puran and Anr. (1990) 4 SCC 731, the High Court had converted a
conviction for an offence under Section 302 to that under Section 304 Part I and reduced the
sentence to the period already undergone (less than six months) where the accused had inflicted
repeated blows with a sharp-edged weapon on the chest of the deceased, and later on vital parts like
the head, back and shoulders after he fell to the ground in a sudden fight. This Court found the
reduced sentence imposed by the High Court to be grossly inadequate and held that it amounted to
a failure of justice. Enhancing the sentence to five years imprisonment, this Court observed:
3. It is true that the High Court is entitled to reappraise the evidence in the case. It is
also true that under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not ordinarily reappraise the
evidence for itself for determining whether or not the High Court has come to a
correct conclusion on facts but where the High Court has completely missed the real
point requiring determination and has also on erroneous grounds discredited the
evidence...the Supreme Court would be justified in going into the evidence for the
purpose of satisfying itself that grave injustice has not resulted in the case.
xx xx xx
8. The High Court has reduced the sentence to the term of imprisonment already
undergone while enhancing the fine. It is pointed out that the respondents have
undergone only imprisonment for a short period of less than six months and, in a
grave crime like this, the sentence awarded is rather inadequate...The sentence
imposed by the High Court appears to be so grossly and entirely inadequate as to
involve a failure of justice. We are of opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the
sentence has to be enhanced. (emphasis supplied)
209. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) 7 SCC 257, the trial Court had awarded
a maximum sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section
365, IPC. The High Court reduced the sentence to the period undergone (forty days). A three- Judge
Bench of this Court intervened on the ground that the sentence awarded was wholly
disproportionate to the crime and substituted a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment. The
Court held as follows:
8. This brings us to the next question in regard to the reduction of sentence made by
the High Court. In criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality.
Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and
minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This
discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised
taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it is committed,
the age, the sex of the accused, in other words the sentence to be awarded will have to
be considered in the background of the fact of each case and the court while doing so
should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 87
neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.
xx xx xx
10. The High Court in this case without even noticing the fact what is the actual
sentence undergone by the appellant pursuant to his conviction awarded by the Trial
Court proceeded to reduce the same to the period already undergone with an added
sentences of fine as stated above. Of course, the High Court by the impugned order
recorded that the facts and circumstances of the case as well as age, character and
other antecedents of the appellant which made the court feel that the ends of justice
would be met if the sentence is reduced and modified. This conclusion of the High
Court for reducing the sentence in our considered view is wholly disproportionate to
the offence of which the appellant is found guilty.
11...On facts and circumstances of this case, we must hold that sentence of 40 days for
an offence punishable under Section 365/511 read with Section 149 is wholly
inadequate and disproportionate.
12. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High
Court, so far as it pertains to the reduction of sentence awarded by the Trial Court
will have to be set aside. (emphasis supplied)
210. Similarly in State of U.P. v. Shri Kishan (2005) 10 SCC 420 this Court intervened when a
sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial Court for an offence punishable
under Section 304 Part II, IPC was reduced by the High Court to the period already undergone,
without regard to the period actually served by the accused. This Court directed the High Court to
re-hear the appeal on the question of sentence keeping in mind the principles on sentencing laid
down by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ghanshyam Singh (2003) 8 SCC 13 that the
sentence must be proportionate to the offence committed and sentence ought not to be reduced
merely on account of long pendency of the matter.
211. In State of M.P. v. Sangram and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 48 a three-Judge Bench of this Court
remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal without going into the merits of the case,
when it found that the High Court had reduced a sentence for an offence under Section 307 IPC
from seven years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone (ten months and five
days) by a short and cryptic judgment:
...Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the
High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence. The High Court
has not assigned any satisfactory reason for reducing the sentence to less than one
year. That apart, the High Court has written a very short and cryptic judgment. To
say the least, the appeal has been disposed of in a most unsatisfactory manner
exhibiting complete non-application of mind. There is absolutely no consideration of
the evidence adduced by the parties...Since the judgment of the High Court is not in
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 88
accordance with law, we have no option but to set aside the same and to remit the
matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the appeal...
212. It is manifest from the above that while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136
of the Constitution this Court has not acted like an ordinary Appellate Court but has confined its
interference only to such rarest of rare situations in which the sentence awarded is so
incommensurate with the gravity of the offence that it amounts to failure of justice. As a matter of
fact in Deo Narain Mandals case (supra) while this Court found the sentence awarded to be wholly
disproportionate to gravity of the offence, this Court considered imprisonment for a period of six
months to be sufficient for an offence which is punishable by a maximum term of two years rigorous
imprisonment. Award of sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for an offence where
maximum sentence prescribed extends to two years cannot, therefore, be said to be inadequate to
call for interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.