IMPORTANT POINT
For deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, aggravating and mitigating facts and circumstances in which crime was committed are to be delicately balanced on basis of relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by Court.

Headnote:CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for it and conduct of accused and other attending circumstances are relevant facts to be taken into consideration—Undue sympathy would do more harm to justice system—Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle—Aggravating and mitigating facts and circumstances in which crime was committed are to be delicately balanced in a dispassionate manner—Object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object.
       Held : 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, and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 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 Naidu (AIR 1991 SC 1463).(Paras 9 and 10)
       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.(Para 13)
       The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. 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.(Para 14)
       The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances which have great impact not only on the health fabric but also on the 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 or personal inconveniences 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 15)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 326 rw/s 149—Appellants convicted and sentenced to eight years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- by High Court in appeal—They with other acquitted accused were tried on a charge u/s 307/149, 143, 147, 341—Appeal—Submission restricted to sentence—Appellants armed with chopper assaulted victim on railway station and victim lost one of his finger—Accused dragged victim to a distance and assaulted him again wherein leg of victim was severely crushed—Leg could not be saved and had to be amputated in view of gangrene that set in by that time—Offence was gruesome—In the back ground of facts, custodial sentence reduced to five years and fine enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- each.(Paras 3, 17 and 18)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding appellant no.1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). Each of the accused appellants was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The appellants and 9 others faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Trial Court convicted accused numbers 1 to 6 and 8 to 13 and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 341 read with Section 149 IPC, and in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, each was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. It had been reported to the Trial Court that accused no.7 died during the pendency of the trial. The judgment was assailed before the High Court both by the accused persons and State. While accused persons questioned conviction and sentence, State on the other hand prayed for enhancement of sentence. The appeals were disposed of as aforenoted.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

T. Kumar (the injured/P.W.7) is a resident of Annechakanahally. As his female child had been left by his wife in his father-in-laws place in Aramballi village of K.R. Nagar Taluk, he went to his father-in-laws place on 7.5.1990 to bring the child. On 8.5.1990 he stayed back there and on 9.5.1990 he was returning to his village Annechakanahally along with his child. His brother-in-law - Puttaswamy (P.W.4) accompanied him. When they came near Hosa Agrahara Railway Station, Puttaswamy proceeded further to purchase the tickets. By the time Kumara came near the signal cabin in Hosa Agrahara Railway Station, he saw all the accused standing near the signal cabin. They were armed with choppers. When they saw Kumara with the child, they suddenly came and surrounded him and before he boarded the train, the accused Nos.1 and 2 gave a blow on the right hand of Kumara by means of a chopper on account of which, Kumara sustained an injury and lost one of his fingers. He left his child, who was snatched by the accused No.11 Ramakrishna. Then all the accused together caught hold of Kumara and dragged him to a little distance and near the hedges at a distance of about 50 to 60 feet from the railway cabin, they began to assault him. His left leg was severely crushed by the assault and Kumara sustained injuries due to the assault on his right leg and other parts of the body also. In the meantime, Puttaswamy (P.W.4), who had returned to the place after purchasing tickets and Niruvanigouda (P.W.3) and Jayabharathi (P.W.1), who had come in the said train, which had arrived by that time at the railway station, saw the incident. When Nirvanegouda (P.W.3) and Puttaswamy (P.W.4) attempted to go near the accused to rescue Kumara, they were threatened by the accused. In the meantime, the train had left the railway station and the accused left the place and ran away. Kumara was grievously injured. Leaving others to look after Kumara, Puttaswamy took the child and went to his village to inform Kumaras father-in-law - Rajegowda (P.W.5). Karthikeyan, Railway Station Master (P.W.17), who had by then come to know of the assault, came to the spot. When Rajegowda and Annegouda assured him that they would shift the injured to the hospital and also inform the police, he returned to the office. In a tempo, the injured was shifted to Bherya Clinic. Since there was no sufficient facility to treat the injured, he was shifted to K.R. Nagar hospital. There, they were advised to take the injured to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and, therefore, the injured was taken there. Dr. B. Suhasini, Assistant Surgeon in K.R. Hospital (P.W.18) examined Ku

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 860

IMPORTANT POINTFor deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, aggravating and mitigating facts and circumstances in which crime was committed are to be delicately balanced on basis of relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by Court.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
For deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, aggravating and mitigating facts and circumstances in which crime was committed are to be delicately balanced on basis of relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by Court.