In Awadh Singh & Anr vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Sandeep Kumar delivered a 17-page long judgement dated February 27, 2026, wherein, he observed that "trial Court had failed to ascribe any reasons for imposing the maximum punishment as permissible under the statute."
The appeal was filed under section 374(2) read with section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2003 passed by the7th Additional Session Judge, Gaya, in connection with Sessions Trial No.75 of 1999, whereby the appellants Awadh Singh and Naro Singh @ Narendra Singh (since deceased) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant- Awadh Singh was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences, imposed upon the appellants were directed to run concurrently. Whereas, appellant- Birju Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 325 of the I.P.C. No separate sentence was imposed upon the convicted-appellants under section 149 of the I.P.C.
Drawing on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mohan Lal, (2018) 18 SCC 535 Justice Kumar concluded:"it is abundantly clear that the trial court must impose appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate sentence upon the convict. In the present case, though the trial court had convicted the appellants but no specific, separate and cogent reasons have been assigned for imposing the maximum punishment. From the perusal of the injuries sustained on the informant, it is clear that the appellant Naro Singh @ Narendra Singh had inflicted Garasa blow to the informant causing grievous injuries. Pertinently, the aforesaid appellant has already died during the pendency of this appeal. Further, the appellant-Birju Singh had inflicted lathi blow causing simple injuries and the appellant-Awadh Singh had fired upon the informant but the same did not hit the informant. Moreover, it appears from the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, that both the surving appellants are in their advanced age approaching approximately 80 years and they are in a senile condition. 25. In view of the aforesaid facts and in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to sustain the judgment of conviction but modify the impugned order of sentence. Accordingly, this Court modifies the impugned order of sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants and further imposes a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each on the appellants herein, which shall be paid to the informant or his surviving legal heirs and in default of payment of fine, the appellants herein shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month."
The judgement reads: "26. The present order shall be communicated to the concerned trial court for necessary execution. 27. The records reveal that the appellants herein are on bail, therefore, the bail bonds of the appellants shall stand cancelled after the execution of the modified sentence. The trial court is directed to ensure the recovery of the fine imposed from the appellants herein and pay the same to the informant or his surviving legal heirs. 28. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with the modification in the impugned order of sentence, as indicated above."
The High Court drew on Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mohan Lal, (2018) 18 SCC 535 which held as under:-
“10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary. However, the courts have framed certain guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that the courts will have to take into account certain principles while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart
from other things, also upon its harmfulness. 11. This Court in Soman v. State of Kerala (2013) 11 SCC 382 observed thus: (SCC p. 393, para 27) “27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales — most prominent amongst proportionality and deterrence. 27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint. 27.3.Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it. 27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor."
Supreme Court recalled that the similar verdict was delivered in Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 wherein it is observed thus: (SCC p. 674, para 84) “84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. 13. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. The court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing process. The courts must see that the public does not lose confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance.”
Justice Kumar observed:"21. Pertinently, the informant was cultivating the land which was given to him lawfully by a competent court, as on the date of occurrence. Therefore, the very presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence with deadly weapons and having caused grievous injuries on the informant clearly establishes the ingredients of section 324 of the I.P.C. 22. In view of the above, this Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment of conviction and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction."
