National Law University

COMMON LAW METHOD

CASE ANALYSIS
OF
Hazara Singh
v.
Raj Kumar and Ors.
[(2013) (3)AJR9]
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Material Facts…………………………………………...2
2. Concrete Decision……………………………………….3
3. Ratio Decidendi………………………………………….4

1
 MATERIAL FACTS

1. On the date of occurrence of the crime, the injured party was in possession of the
land.
2. The injuries suffered by the victims were grievous and injuries caused to Mehma
Singh (one of the victims) were dangerous to life and he had also lost his speech.
3. The two important facts on which the High Court relied upon in giving the said
decision and considered to be material were-

a) If the accused are sent behind bars, it will revive the old enmity that existed
between accused and victim’s family.
b) The accused also suffered long agony of long trial /appeal for the last 14 years.

But, these facts were considered immaterial by the Supreme Court for determining the
sentence to be awarded to the accused and considered the reasoning behind the use of
these facts as unreliable.
4. The accused wielded dangerous weapons like firearms, gandasi and other blunt and
sharp weapons.
5. The victims escaped death.
6. The accused (Raj Kumar) had been charge sheeted individually for causing grievous
injury on the head of Mehma Singh with an intention or knowledge.

2
 CONCRETE DECISION

The main point for consideration by the Supreme Court was ‘whether the HC is justified in
reducing the sentence awarded to the accused persons to the period already undergone’.

1. The offence committed by the accused is proved to be one under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, punishable with imprisonment for life and that they did indeed
cause injuries in the manner as propounded by the prosecution.

2. The Supreme Court decided that the sentence imposed by the High Court would be set
aside and the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions judge would be restored as a
result of which the accused shall be taken into custody to suffer their sentence.

3. All the Respondents (accused) were taken into custody forthwith to serve the
remaining period of sentence as ordered by the trial court and hence, the appeal was
allowed.

3
 RATIO DECIDENDI

1. In arriving at the decision, the Supreme Court relied on previous cases in which the
factual matrix of cases was similar.

2. In giving its final decision, the Supreme Court relied was not only on the extent of
injury suffered by the victims, but also on the nature of the offence and the manner
in which it was executed by the accused. The facts and circumstances of the case, the
motive for the commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused were relevant
facts which would help the court in determining whether or not the sentence imposed
upon the accused was justified or not.

3. The main objective of awarding an appropriate sentence was to protect the society and
to deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to law by imposing an
appropriate sentence.

4. The SC held the belief that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the
crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offences
that he has committed.

5. A meager sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering

the degree of the offence will be against the interest of the society at large in the long
run.

6. The Supreme Court also held that the fact that the accused have already suffered
agony for the past 14 years because of the long trial, is immaterial and if taken into
account, defeats the deterrent effect of the criminal law.

Hence, the court arrived at the following Ratio Decidendi –

Court must not only keep in view rights of victim but also society at large while
considering imposition of appropriate punishment.