Balancing Sentence
| Date :05-Aug-2019 |
The court had stated 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. 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.
JUSTICE R. Banumathi and Justice A. S. Bopanna, at the Supreme Court, have observed in the judgement of the case – Suryakant Baburao alias Ramrao Phad v. State of Maharashtra & Others, delivered on July 30, 2019, that though the court has discretion in awarding the sentence, it should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
The court has derived support for this observation from its earlier decision in the case – State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh – (2015) 3 SCC 441. In para 16 of this judgement, the court had stated, as under: “16...undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice 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 sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances having bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
“The court 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. Meager sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of offence will be counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of the society.” In the decision of the court in the case- Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana –(2015) 11 SCC 588, the Court has held: “11.
The question of sentence is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. “The law courts have been consistent in the approach that a reasonable proportion has to be maintained between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment. While it is true that a punishment disproportionately severe should not be passed that does not clothe the court with an option to award the sentence manifestly inadequate.
Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect the public abhorrence of the crime.” In the decision of the case- Sevaka Perumal &; Another v. State of Tamil Nadu- (1991) 3 SCC 471, the court has held: “10... If the courts did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance.
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 appeal arose from the judgement passed by the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench on July 12, 2018, and by which the HC affirmed in the appeal conviction of accused No. 1 –Devraj under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him from seven to five years and imposed fine of Rs 25,000/-. In respect of the accused Ashish and Balaji, the HC acquitted them from the charges under Section307 read with Section 34 IPC and instead convicted them under section 326 read with section 34 IPC and reduced the prison-term to the period already undergone and directed each of them to pay fine of Rs 25,000/-. The HC maintained conviction and sentence of each of the 3 accused under Section 323 read with section 34 IPC, as awarded by the trial court. The appellant-complainant had filed this appeal challenging the reduction of sentence of imprisonment of the accused Nos. 2 to 4. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons under Sections 307, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. Later on the Charge under the Arms Act was altered to Section 3 read with the Section 25 of the Arms Act. On December 23, 2015, the trial court convicted and sentenced the first 3 accused to suffer RI for 7 years and fine of Rs 15,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Section 307 IPC. For the offence under section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, these 3 accused were sentenced to suffer RI for six months with fine of Rs 500/- with default clause.
Out of the amount of fine, there was direction to pay Rs 20,000/- to the injured Chandrakant (PW-6) and Suryakant (PW-7) each as compensation as per the provision of Section 357 CrPC. In appeal , the HC affirmed the conviction of the accused Devraj under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to him to five years with enhanced fine to Rs 25,000 /- with default clause. Being aggrieved injured complainant Suryakant had preferred this appeal. While considering the quantum of sentence, the courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, in particular nature of injuries caused in the occurrence and the weapon used which will have bearing on the question of sentence and the courts are bound to impose sentence commensurate with the gravity of offence.
Considering the injuries caused to PW-6, Chandrakant- gun shot wounds in the chest and the opinion of doctor that the injuries caused to PW-6 are capable of causing death, in the Supreme Court’s view, the HC was not right in reducing the sentence of first accused – Devraj. When the trial court had exercised its discretion in imposing RI for seven years, the HC ought to have kept in view the weapon used by accused-Army personnel Devraj and the nature of injuries caused to Chandrakant and the opinion of the doctor.
Since the accused Ashish and Balaji were not armed with the deadly weapons, the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with their acquittal under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In the result, the apex court set aside the impugned judgement of the HC. Partly allowing the appeal of Devraj, maintaining conviction under Section 307-attempt to murder read with Section 34 IPC, the SC sentenced him to undergo RI for six and a half years. The SC maintained the HC’s directions regarding the amount of fine ordered to be deposited by the accused persons and its payment to the injured victims. Devraj was directed to surrender in 4 weeks to suffer remaining sentence. Failing that, the SC has directed that he should be taken into custody.