principles on sentencing in the absence of a sentencing policy
for the State, certain indicators need to be born in mind by the
Courts. The gravity of the offence, the mitigating factors and
circumstances like parties buying peace, parties settling the
disputes and getting reconciled, victim subsequently becoming
part of the family, victim showing interest in getting monetarily
compensated, etc., the motive for commission of the crime, the
manner in which it was planned and committed, the prescribed
punishment and the social abhorrence of the offences are but a
few of them. These factors would help the court to discern and
decipher the appropriate purpose of punishment and to enter a
satisfaction that justice has been done. Unless there are
mitigating circumstances which were omitted to be noted by
the trial court, the appellate/revisional court will not be justified
in arbitrarily reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court.
And in any case, when the appellate/revisional court reduces
the sentence, the factors leading to such reduction should be
reflected in the order.
11. In this context, it would also be profitable to refer to
Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2010) 12 SCC 532
, wherethis Court held that
the punishment should reflect the society’s cry for justice
against the criminals. To quote:
“14. The general policy which the courts
have followed with regard to sentencing is that the
punishment must be appropriate and proportional
to the gravity of the offence committed. Imposition
of appropriate punishment is the manner in which
the courts respond to the society’s cry for justice
against the criminals. Justice demands that courts
should impose punishment befitting the crime so
that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the
crime.”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1241 OF 2015
(Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 95/2014)
Jasbir Singh … Appellant (s)
Versus
Tara Singh and others … Respondent (s)
Dated;September 21, 2015.
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. The de facto complainant has come up in appeal
aggrieved by the alleged lenient view taken by the High Court
in the impugned judgment with regard to the sentence.
3. The party-respondents were tried under Sections 466,
467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) for having committed a serious
offence of forgery of documents in order to grab the property of
one Harbans Singh. The trial court imposed the following
sentence:
1
REPORTABLEPage 2
“Name of Section R.I. Fine (Rs.) In Default
Accused
Partapa 466 IPC 2 years 500/- One month
Tara Singh 466/120-B 1 year 500/- One month
467 IPC 3 years 1000/- Two months
468 IPC 3 years 1000/- Two months
471 IPC 2 years 500/- One months
Bhajan Singh 467 IPC 3 years 1000/- Two months
468 IPC 3 years 1000/- Two months
Charan Dass 467 IPC 3 years 1000/- Two months
468 IPC 3 years 1000/- Two months
Dalbir Singh 467 IPC 3 years 1000/- Two months
468 IPC 3 years 1000/- Two months”
4. The appeal by the party-respondents was dismissed. In
Revision, it appears the challenge was limited only to the
quantum of sentence. As a matter of fact, notice issued by this
Court is limited to the question of quantum of sentence only.
The party-respondents mainly contended on prolonged trial and
their advanced age. To quote the relevant submissions:
“… Learned counsel for the petitioners contends
that the petitioners are facing agony of trial since
registration of the FIR i.e. 25.6.1996 and they are
in the age group of 45 to 58. Learned counsel
further contends that the petitions are first
offenders, they are neither previous convicts nor
are having any criminal background. Learned
2Page 3
counsel prays that keeping in view the age of the
petitioners and also the fact that they have
already suffered a lot of mental agony as they are
facing trial since 1996, their sentence, therefore,
be reduced to the period already undergone by
them. …”
5. The High Court passed the following order:
“Heard the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and have also gone through
the contents of the FIR.
Keeping in view the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are
first offenders and are not having any criminal
background and are facing agony of trial since
registration of FIR i.e. 25.6.1996, the present
petition is partly allowed. The judgments passed
by Courts below qua conviction are upheld and
sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the
period already undergone by them.”
6. The actual period undergone by the party-respondents
is as follows, as noted in the impugned judgment:
“As per the custody certificate issued by Jail
Authorities, as on 24.05.2013, the custody
period/actual period undergone (excluding
remission) of the respondents is:
Tara Singh - 4 months 26 days,
Bhajan Singh - 5 months 24 days,
Charan Dass - 5 months 26 days,
Dalbir Singh - 5 months 24 days.”
Learned Counsel for the party-respondents submits that
they have undergone a few more days incarceration in the jail.
7. The appellant submits that the offences being grave in
nature, the High Court should not have let them go lightly.
8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
party-respondents as well.
9. The prescribed maximum punishment for offence under
Section 466 of IPC is seven years and fine; under Section 467 of
IPC, it is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years
and fine; under Section 468 of IPC, it is seven years and fine
and under Section 471 of IPC, it is two years or with fine or
both. The trial court, having regard to the very same
submissions made before the High Court, passed the sentence
which we have extracted above.
10. Though it is not possible for this court to lay down strict
principles on sentencing in the absence of a sentencing policy
for the State, certain indicators need to be born in mind by the
Courts. The gravity of the offence, the mitigating factors and
circumstances like parties buying peace, parties settling the
disputes and getting reconciled, victim subsequently becoming
part of the family, victim showing interest in getting monetarily
compensated, etc., the motive for commission of the crime, the
manner in which it was planned and committed, the prescribed
punishment and the social abhorrence of the offences are but a
few of them. These factors would help the court to discern and
decipher the appropriate purpose of punishment and to enter a
satisfaction that justice has been done. Unless there are
mitigating circumstances which were omitted to be noted by
the trial court, the appellate/revisional court will not be justified
in arbitrarily reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court.
And in any case, when the appellate/revisional court reduces
the sentence, the factors leading to such reduction should be
reflected in the order.
11. In this context, it would also be profitable to refer to
Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh1
, wherethis Court held that
the punishment should reflect the society’s cry for justice
against the criminals. To quote:
“14. The general policy which the courts
have followed with regard to sentencing is that the
punishment must be appropriate and proportional
to the gravity of the offence committed. Imposition
of appropriate punishment is the manner in which
1
(2010) 12 SCC 532
5Page 6
the courts respond to the society’s cry for justice
against the criminals. Justice demands that courts
should impose punishment befitting the crime so
that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the
crime.”
12. In the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed and
impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to the
High Court for passing an appropriate order in the case in
accordance with law.
....…….…..…………J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
….................……J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
New Delhi;
September 21, 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment