Sham Sunder v. Puran and another (1991)
In Sham Sunder v. Puran and another (1991), the High Court had convicted the accused- appellant therein under Section 304 Part- I IPC and reduced the sentence to the term of imprisonment already undergone, i.e. six months, while enhancing the fine. In that context, the Court opined that the sentence awarded was rather inadequate. Proceeding further it has been opined as follows: –
“No particular reason has been given by the High Court for awarding such sentence. The court in fixing the punishment for any particular crime should take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. 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.”
After so stating the Court enhanced the sentenced to one of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
Sevaka Perumal and another v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991)
In Sevaka Perumal and another v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991), after referring to the decision in Mahesh v. State of M.P. (1987) , the Court observed that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats. The Court further observed that if the courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance and, therefore, 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.
State of M.P. v. Saleem alias Chamaru and another (2005)
In State of M.P. v. Saleem alias Chamaru and another (2005), the Court opined that the object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal that bing the avowed object of law. It further ruled that it is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (1996)
In Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (1996) the Court while giving emphasis on relevance of imposition of adequate sentencing in the social context observed thus:-
10. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should “respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal”.
In our view, if for such heinous crimes the most deterrent punishment for wanton and brutal murders is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance.”
State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000)
In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000), a three- Judge Bench, while discussing about the purpose of imposition of adequate sentence, opined that protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence and the sentencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010)
In Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010), the trial court had convicted the appellant therein under Section 308 IPC along with another and punished them with two years rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the appellant were affirmed. By the time the matter came to be considered by Supreme Court, the appellant had already undergone eight months in custody. While reducing the sentence, the Court observed as under: –
“15. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. 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.
16. 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 sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.”
Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013)
In Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013), 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 realize that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in his life 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, for it serves as a deterrent.
The Court observed, true it is, 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 been further opined 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.
Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka (2012)
In Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, the Court, discussing about the sentencing policy, had to say this: –
“33. There can hardly be any cavil that there has to be a proportion between the crime and the punishment. It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored.”
In Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2012) though in a different context, it has stated that: –
“64. … the criminal jurisprudence, with the passage of time, has laid emphasis on victimology which fundamentally is a perception of a trial from the viewpoint of the criminal as well as the victim. Both are viewed in the social context. The view of the victim is given due regard and respect in certain countries…. it is the duty of the court to see that the victim’s right is protected.”
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Najab Khan and others (2013), the State had preferred an appeal as the High Court, 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. In that context, the Court, after referring to number of authorities and reiterating the principles, stated that 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.
It was further observed that undue sympathy in imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice dispensation system and 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.
After so stating the sentence imposed by the High Court was set aside and that of the trial Judge, whereby he had convicted the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, was restored. Similar principle has been assertively reiterated in Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar and others (2013).
In Sumer Singh v Surajbhan Singh (2014), the court said 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 rule of law. It must evince the rationalized judicial discretion and not an individual perception or a moral propensity.
But, if in the ultimate eventuate the proper sentence is not awarded, the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotined. Law cannot tolerate it; society does not withstand it; and sanctity of conscience abhors it. 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. True it is, it has its own room, but, in all circumstances, it cannot be allowed to occupy the whole accommodation. The victim, in this case, still cries for justice. 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.
Therefore, striking the balance we are disposed to think that the cause of justice would be best subserved if the respondent is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years apart from the fine that has been imposed by the learned trial judge.
33. Before parting with the case we are obliged, nay, painfully constrained to state that it has come to the notice of Supreme Court that in certain heinous crimes or crimes committed in a brutal manner the High Courts in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction have imposed extremely lenient sentences which shock the conscience. It should not be so. It should be borne in mind what Cicero had said centuries ago: – “it can truly be said that the magistrate is a speaking law, and the law a silent magistrate[1]. “
Reference
Sumer Singh v Surajbhan Singh (2014)
[1] 26 CICERO, De Republica, De Legibus (Loeb Classical Library, Keyes, Clinton Walker, trans., Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1928), p. 461.