In Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi)[1], it has been ruled that primarily it is to be borne in mind that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be imposed regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the accused must realise that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is designed so that the individuals in the society which ultimately constitute the collective do not suffer time and again for such crimes. It serves as a deterrent.
The Court further observed that on certain occasions, opportunities may be granted to the convict for reforming himself but it is equally true that the principle of proportionality between an offence committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in view. It has to be borne in mind that while carrying out this complex exercise, it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the impact of the offence on the society as a whole and its ramifications on the immediate collective as well as its repercussions on the victim.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Najab Khan and others[2], the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, while maintaining the conviction under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, i.e., 14 days. The two-Judge Bench referred to the authorities in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat[3], Ahmed Hussain Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat[4], Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh[5] and Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka[6] and held thus: –
“In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.
We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice dispensation system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.”
In the said case, the Court ultimately set aside the sentence imposed by the High Court and restored that of the trial Judge, whereby he had convicted the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.
In Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh & others[7], while elaborating on the duty of the Court while imposing sentence for an offence, it has been ruled that it is the duty of the court to impose adequate sentence, for one of the purposes of imposition of requisite sentence is protection of the society and a legitimate response to the collective conscience. The paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be proportionate. It is the answer of law to the social conscience. In a way, it is an obligation to the society which has reposed faith in the court of law to curtail the evil. While imposing the sentence it is the court’s accountability to remind itself about its role and the reverence for the rule of law. It must evince the rationalised judicial discretion and not an individual perception or a moral propensity.
The Court further held that if in the ultimate eventuate the proper sentence is not awarded, the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotined and law does not tolerate it; society does not withstand it; and sanctity of conscience abhors it. It was observed that the old saying “the law can hunt one’s past” cannot be allowed to be buried in an indecent manner and the rainbow of mercy, for no fathomable reason, should be allowed to rule. The conception of mercy has its own space but it cannot occupy the whole accommodation. While dealing with grant of further compensation in lieu of sentence, the Court ruled: –
“We do not think that increase in fine amount or grant of compensation under the Code would be a justified answer in law. Money cannot be the oasis. It cannot assume the centre stage for all redemption. Interference in manifestly inadequate and unduly lenient sentence is the justifiable warrant, for the Court cannot close its eyes to the agony and anguish of the victim and, eventually, to the cry of the society.”
In State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh[8], Supreme Court, after referring to the decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablu[9] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh[10], reiterated the settled proposition of law that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the nature of crime regard being had to the manner in which the offence is committed. It has been further held that one should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it would shock the conscience of the society. Emphasis was laid on the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as imposition of lesser sentence encourages a criminal and resultantly the society suffers.
In Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and others[11], on reduction of sentence by the High Court to the period already undergone, the Court ruled thus: –
“Despite authorities existing and governing the field, it has come to the notice of this Court that sometimes the court of first instance as well as the appellate court which includes the High Court, either on individual notion or misplaced sympathy or personal perception seems to have been carried away by passion of mercy, being totally oblivious of lawful obligation to the collective as mandated by law and forgetting the oft quoted saying of Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, “Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser too” and follow an extremely liberal sentencing policy which has neither legal permissibility nor social acceptability.”
And again: – “A Judge has to keep in mind the paramount concept of rule of law and the conscience of the collective and balance it with the principle of proportionality but when the discretion is exercised in a capricious manner, it tantamounts to relinquishment of duty and reckless abandonment of responsibility. One cannot remain a total alien to the demand of the socio-cultural milieu regard being had to the command of law and also brush aside the agony of the victim or the survivors of the victim. Society waits with patience to see that justice is done. There is a hope on the part of the society and when the criminal culpability is established and the discretion is irrationally exercised by the court, the said hope is shattered and the patience is wrecked.”
Though we have referred to the decisions covering a period of almost three decades, it does not necessarily convey that there had been no deliberation much prior to that. There had been. In B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration[12], the Court while delving into the issue of punishment had observed that punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law-abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question of awarding appropriate sentence.
The purpose of referring to the aforesaid precedents is that they are to be kept in mind and adequately weighed while exercising the discretion pertaining to awarding of sentence. Protection of society on the one hand and the reformation of an individual are the facets to be kept in view.
In Shanti Lal Meena v. State (NCT of Delhi)[13], the Court has held that as far as punishment for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, there is no serious scope for reforming the convicted public servant. Therefore, it shall depend upon the nature of crime, the manner in which it is committed, the propensity shown and the brutality reflected.
[1] (2013) 7 SCC 77
[2] (2013) 9 SCC 509
[3] (2006) 2 SCC 359
[4] (2009) 7 SCC 254
[5] (2010) 12 SCC 532
[6] (2012) 8 SCC 734
[7] (2014) 7 SCC 323
[8] (2015) 3 SCC 441
[9] (2014) 9 SCC 281
[10] (2015) 1 SCC 222
[11] (2016) 1 SCC 463
[12] (1974) 3 SCC 85
[13] (2015) 6 SCC 185