JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

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 reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.

3. The respondent faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 376(1) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC) and Sections 324 and 452 IPC. For the first offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations. For the second offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. Similarly, for the 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 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.

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 o