State Of M.P vs Pappu & Ajay

last offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with

default stipulations.

4. He preferred an appeal before the High Court and the

High Court, by the impugned order, held that since the

respondent had undergone imprisonment for about five

months and 25 days, the sentence should be reduced to the

period already undergone in respect of the first offence.

5. The State of Madhya Pradesh has questioned

correctness of the judgment on the ground that considering 3

the gravity of the offence involved, the High Court ought not to

have reduced the sentence to the period undergone which, as

noted above, was less than six months.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the

judgment of the High Court.

7. In the instant case the victim was examined as PW-3.

It is to be noted that three persons faced trial and the

co-accused persons were acquitted of the charges.

8. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the

appellant - State, no reason has been indicated by the High

Court to direct reduction of sentence.

9. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates

conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and

property of the people is an essential function of the State. It

could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law.

Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law 4

must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are

required to mould the sentencing system to meet the

challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine

social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and

stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law

which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.

Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order"

should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman

in his "Law in Changing Society" stated that, "State of criminal

law continues to be as it should be a decisive reflection of

social consciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the

sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery

or the 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.

5

10. Therefore, 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 such serious threats. It

is, 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 etc. This position was

illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v.

State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1991 SC 1463).

11. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of

proportionality in prescribing liability according to the

culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows

some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a

sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that

reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised

by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm

that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice

sentences are determined largely by other considerations.

Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that 6

are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the

desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes

even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these

considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis

of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are

serious and widespread.

12. After giving due consideration to the facts and

circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate

sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and

mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has

been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of

really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by

the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It

has been very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCGDautha

v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no

formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a

reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate

punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may

affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof 7

formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to

correctly assess various circumstances germane to the

consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in

the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment

may be equitably distinguished.

13. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect

on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile

exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to

offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation

of public money, treason and other offences involving moral

turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on

social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and

per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by

imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view

merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences

will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and

against societal interest which needs to be cared for and

strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing

system.

8

14. 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". If for extremely heinous crime of

murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any

provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case

of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance.

15. These aspects have been elaborated in State of M.P.

v. Ghanshyam Singh (2003(8) SCC 13), and State of M.P. v.

Babbu Barkare alias Dalap Singh (2005 (5) SCC 413).

16. Considering the legal position as indicated above the 9

High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is accordingly

set aside. The judgment of the Trial Court is restored. The

respondent shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the

remainder of sentence.

17. The appeal is allowed.

...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.............................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, August 4, 2008