The case reiterates that appropriate punishment for heinous crimes must reflect societal values, and in this instance, a modified life sentence of at least 20 years was deemed essential rather than the death penalty.

JUDGMENT :

The conviction of the Appellant under Sections 302 /201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC ) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh vide judgment dated 29.06.2017 in S.T. Case No.76/115 of 2015/2014 having been confirmed by us by our judgment dated 26.06.2023, the present order is on the question of appropriate sentence to be imposed on her.

Be it noted that the Convict-Appellant having been convicted as aforesaid was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 201 of with further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

After hearing the appeal preferred by the Convict-Appellant, we did not find any infirmity much less illegality in the judgment of conviction and therefore, confirmed the same. However, as regards the sentence, we were not persuaded to take the view that the sentence so imposed by the trial Court was adequate. Therefore, despite the fact that the State had not preferred any appeal for enhancement of the sentence, having regard to the settled position of law as reflected in the judgments of the Apex Court viz., Sahab Singh and others vs. State of Haryana , reported in (1990) 2 SCC 385 and Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 767 , we deemed it proper to exercise the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. and called upon the convict to have her say on the adequacy of sentence and as to why she should not be visited with the sentence of higher degree. As such, we issued notice to the convict-Appellant through her lawyer as also separately through the Superintendent of District Jail, Nayagarh. We also called upon the Superintendent of District Jail, Nayagarh to submit a report as to the conduct of the Appellant during the period of her incarceration. Pursuant to such notice, the convict-Appellant has submitted her submission in writing through the Superintendent. The Superintendent has also submitted the report regarding the conduct of the Appellant while in jail.

2. We heard Mr. Sahasransu Sourav, learned Counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae since none appeared on behalf of the Appellant when the matter after service of notice was listed for hearing on enhancement of sentence upon the Convict-Appellant. Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State also advanced the submission.

We heard them at length.

3. Before adverting to the contentions raised before us by learned counsel for the parties we deem it proper to keep in perspective the principle of law relating to adequacy of punishment. It is trite that imposition of appropriate punishment is sine qua non being the logical conclusion of a criminal trial. At this juncture we profitably refer to the following observations of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ravji v. State of Rajasthan , reported in (1996) 2 SCC 175 ; which runs as under:-

“xxxxxxx The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting publi