BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani and A.S. Gadkari, JJ.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.—Appellants
versus
Vitthal Tukaram Atugade & Anr.—Respondents
Confirmation Case No.1 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No.923 of 2015
Decided on 14.3.2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Object of sentencing should be to see that crime does not go unpunished and victim of crime as also society have satisfaction that justice has been done to it.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 376(2)(f) and 302—Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Section 4—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 366(1)—Rape and murder of minor girl—Death sentence—Extra judicial confession given by accused was free and voluntary is deserving highest credit because it flows from highest sense of guilt— Extra judicial confession was given by accused due to repentance of crime committed by him—Place of occurrence also stood established—Entire evidence adduced by prosecution which is available on record, same is more than sufficient to sustain conviction of accused under Sections 302 and 376 of IPC—On the date of commission of offence accused was approximately only 20 years of age—Accused has no criminal background or any antecedents at his discredit—Death sentence commuted to life sentence. (Paras 33, 34, 37, 51 to 57)

       (B) Precedent—Ratio of Judgment—Observations in a judgment cannot be de hors point which is sought to be raised and facts in which such point is raised—Observations cannot by themselves form ratio of decision—Ratio of decision is to be drawn after considering facts of case, point which is sought to be raised in the matter, arguments which are canvassed in support of rival contentions in relation to such point, discussion made by Court with reference to such point canvassed by Counsel for parties and ultimate decision arrived thereupon—On taking into consideration all these aspects, ratio of decision has to be gathered—Any sentence in a judgment cannot be read as a statutory provision and ratio in that regard. (Para 28)

       (C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 354(3)—Death sentence—Justifiability—A convict hovers between life and death when question of gravity of offence and award of adequate sentence comes up for consideration—Mankind has shifted from state of nature towards a civilized society and it is no longer physical opinion of majority that takes away liberty of a citizen by convicting him and making him suffer a sentence of imprisonment—Award of punishment following conviction at a trial in a system wedded to rule of law is outcome of cool deliberation in court room after adequate hearing is afforded to parties, accusations are brought against accused, prosecuted is given an opportunity of meeting accusations by establishing his innocence—It is outcome of cool deliberations and screening of material that leads to determination of sentence after taking into consideration all aggravating and mitigating circumstances. (Para 38)

       (D) Criminal Law—Just Sentence—Measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon atrocity of crime; conduct of the criminal and defenseless and unprotected state of victim—Imposition of appropriate punishment is manner in which courts respond to society’s cry for justice against criminals—Justice demands that courts should impose punishment fitting to crime so that courts reflect public abhorrence of crime—Courts must not only keep in view rights of criminal but also rights of victim of crime and society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment—Showing undue sympathy and imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system and undermine public confidence in efficacy of law and society would not long endure under serious threats—Object of sentencing should be to see that crime does not go unpunished and victim of crime as also society have satisfaction that justice has been done to it—In imposing sentences, in absence of specific legislation, Judges must consider variety of factors and after considering all those factors and taking an overall view of situation, impose sentence which they consider to be an appropriate one—Aggravating factors cannot be ignored and similarly mitigating circumstances have also to be taken into consideration. (Paras 40 and 41)

       Result: Appeal Partly allowed.