The Supreme Court restored a four-year sentence imposed by the trial court for offences under Sections 376(1)/511, 324 and 452 IPC, holding that the High Court had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone without giving reasons, contrary to settled principles requiring sentences proportionate to the gravity and social impact of the offence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 793
A
-"y
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v.
PAPPU@ AJAY (Criminal Appeal No.1213 of 2008).
AUGUST 4, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860; S. 376(1) r/w s.511 and Ss. 324 and 452:
c
Sentencing - Trial Court convicting accused for c0.mmitting offences punishable u/s. 376(1) rlw s. 511 and Ss. 324 and 452 /PC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 4 years - High Court reducing the sentence to the period already undergone viz. 5 months and 25 days - Correctness ofD - Held: Incorrect- No reason indicated by the High Court while .... ..,. directing reduction of sentence_ - It is duty of the Court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed - For deciding just and appropriate sentence, the aggravating and mitigating circum- E stances in which crime was· committed, to be delicately balanced in a dispassionate manner by the Court - Social impact of crime must not be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment - In the light of legal position on sentenc~ ing, the High Court's order clearly not sustainable and set aside F - Judgment of the trial court restored.
• j
Sentencing - Object and quantum of - Discussed..
' -~
Accused-respondent was convicted by the trlal court for committing the offences punishable under Sections G 376(1) read with Section 511 IPC and Sections 324 and 452 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. In an appeal preferred by the accused against the order of the trial court, High Court held ·793
H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 11 S.C.R.
f .,,,
Appellant-State contended that considering the gravB ity of the offence involved; the High Court ought not to have reduced the sentence to, the period undergone, which was less than six ·months.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
C HELD: 1.1 No reason has been indicated by the High Court to direct reduction of sentence. (Para -- 8) [797-F]
1.2. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates con. flicting claims and· demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. 0 It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal -·law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where .living law 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 -E would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the objectof law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges conF fronting the society. (Para - 9) [797 G-H, 798-A]
· "Law in Changing. Society" by Friedman - referred to.
1.3 Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would. do .more harm to the justice system to undermine · G the publi.c confidence in the efficacy of law and society CQ.µld; npt_ long endure under such serious threats. It is, th,ere.for~ •. the duty of every court to. award proper sen. tence t)aving regard to the nature 9f ~he offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. (Para H - 10) [798-D-E]
, « I
795
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PAPPU @AJAY
-·,,-
~ -. ' ' J ~~ ~ ~ ~
' ... '1·
~
~ 1
-..,,
Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR (1991) SC 1463 - relied on.
1.4 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 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. (Para - 11) [798 G-H, 799 A]
1.5 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. (Para - 12) [799 B-C]
Dennis Councle MCGOautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 - referred to.
1.6 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, 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. (Para - 13) [799 F-Hl
1.7 The punishment to be awarded for a crime must
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with w,hich 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. (Para - 14). B [800.A-B]
. . . State. of.MP v. Ghanshyarn Singh (2003) 8 SCC 13 and State of M.P v. Babbu Barkare alias Da/ap Singh (2005) 5 sec 413 :-- relied on. '
_C · 2. ·Considering the legal position, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. ·(Para ..:.. 16) [800-0]
· · ' Case Law Reference D ..· AIR(1991) .sc1463 Relied 'on Para - 10 .402 US.183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 Referred to Para - 12 .-~ (2003) a sec 13 Relied on Para - 15 (2005) 5 ·sec 413 Relied on Para - 15 E CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISD.ICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.1.2004 of the·High ;Court o(Madhya Pradesh at'Jabalpufhi Criminal Appeal No.· 1·482· of 2002 · · ,. , · ·· F . .Govind Goel,. C,D. Singh and Sunny Chaudhary for the Appellant.
G
Nirrnal Chopra for the Respondent. . · . ~ " .. , " ' . •', ' , .. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Or. AFHJIT PASA'fAT, J. I > ' f' ~ 1. Leave granted'. ·,
.. · .2. Since the only question involved.in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in reducing the sentence, as imposed by the High Court on the respondent, detailed. referH erke to the factual aspects .is unnecessary.
>("
797
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PAPPU @AJAY [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-·y
_J'_ )<.
E
> ').
-~
F
H
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
v---
~ ~
l
i "
f==
A tencing 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 whic_h must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice. B'of"ord~r"shouldmeet the challenge_s 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 o.f social consciousness of so.ciety". Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law·should adopt the corrective cmachinery or the deterrence ·b?sed on factual matrix. By deft modulation sE:11tencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances· ih each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for Dcommissionof the crime, the conduct of the accused, the na- ture of weapons used and all. other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.
I- ~ •
>( ..
-¥ ...
I ~
'='f-
·>
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PAPPU @AJAY [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
799
; j
correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a 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. B
D
F
H
800
[2008) 11 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
v-\
\
A 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 conB form 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 provoC cation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance.
A
D
E
S.K.S.
Appeal allowed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court could reduce the sentence for attempted rape to the period already undergone without assigning reasons.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶10
AIR (1991) SC 1463 · Who else cites this
Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of CaliforniaReferred¶12
402 US 183 : 28 L.D. 2d 711
State of M.P v. Ghanshyam SinghRelied on¶15
(2003) 8 SCC 13 · Who else cites this
State of M.P v. Babbu Barkare alias Dalap SinghRelied on¶15
(2005) 5 SCC 413 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Madhya Pradesh
Pappu @ Ajay
Arijit Pasayat
Mukundakam Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
