IMPORTANT POINT
Undue leniency in sentencing shakes public confidence in criminal justice system, deterrent effect may not be there – Rights of victim and his family members are also to be considered.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) by the Trial Court and punishment of death penalty along with fine was imposed. As he had been awarded death sentence, the matter was referred to the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi for confirmation. Simultaneously, the appellant also filed appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. Both were heard together. The Division Bench of the High Court while upholding conviction of the appellant, modified the sentence. The death sentence was commuted into life sentence and it was directed that the appellant shall remain in jail for whole of his biological life, without any benefit of remission. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2. The facts of the case, as are evident from the order passed by the High Court, are that a complaint was lodged by informant, Bikash Kumar Mandal (PW-5), brother of the deceased girl (aged about 14 years at the time of incident), about an incident which took place at village Rangamati, Raja Basti, near Kali Temple, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad on 3.11.2007 at about 10.45 a.m. He claimed that his sister had gone to take bath in the village pond along with wife and daughter of his neighbour, Raju Mukherjee (PW-9). At about 9.30 a.m. wife (PW-10) and daughter (PW-16) of Raju Mukherjee returned, but his sister did not return. On enquiry, he was informed that his sister had left the pond before them after taking bath. The informant (PW-5), his mother (PW-11) and Raju Mukherjee (PW-9) went out in search of his sister towards Kali Temple. They saw the appellant assaulting his sister by a stone in the field of Jag Bandhu Ram. She was bleeding profusely. Upon seeing them, the appellant fled away from the spot. They found his sister dead. There were number of injuries. Her face was entirely defaced and there were no clothes on her body. Her skirt, top, panty, earrings, bangles, mala and payal were found at a distance of about 20-30 feet. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 63/2007 dated 3.11.2007 was registered under Sections 376 and 302/34 IPC.

3. From the post mortem report of the deceased, it was found that her hymen was lacerated, spermatozoa was found on testing of vaginal swab, frontal bone of the skull was found fractured into pieces, besides other grievous injuries. The cause of death was found to be the injuries suffered by the deceased on head and brain, which were caused by hard and blunt object and a forceful sexual assault before her death.

4. Considering the aforesaid report and the unimpeachable evidence of the eye-witnesses, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court. Considering the case to be falling in the category of rarest of rare, the Trial Court proposed to award death sentence. The High Court, in appeal filed by the appellant and on a reference by the Trial Court for confirmation of the death sentence, modified the same to life imprisonment.

5. Notice in the appeal was issued confined only to the direction of the High Court that the life sentence awarded to the appellant shall be for the whole of his biological life, without any benefit of remission.

6. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that there is no reasoning given by the High Court that there are no chances of his reformation. As there is no criminal history of the appellant, there are chances of his reformation. Therefore, this court may modify the sentence awarded to the appellant while granting him benefit of remission, to whatever he is entitled to. He has further submitted that if the benefit of remission cannot be granted, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to certain limited period instead of whole of his biological life. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in Shiva Kumar alias Shivamurthy vs. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC Online SC 345.

7. On the other