LexBIKRAM DORJEE versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 c [2009) 6 S.C.R. 884 BIKRAM DORJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2009) APRIL 24, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Sentence/Sentencing: Life sentence for conviction uls 304 (Part I) /PC - Propriety of - Held : Life sentence in appropriate case can be imposed in a case re/atable to s. 304 (Part I) /PC - However, on facts, 1 O years custodial sentence would meet o the ends of justice - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part/). Imposition of sentence - Determinative factors for - Proportionality in imposition of - Discussed. E The question involved for consideration in the present appeal was whether sentence of life imprisonment could be awarded to the accused convicted u/s 304 (Part I) IPC. F Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Though life sentence in appropriate cases can be imposed in a case relatable to Section 304 (Part I) IPC, on the peculiar facts of the case 10 years custodial sentence would meet the ends of justice. [Para 12) [890- G BJ 2.1. 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 H 884 • BIKRAM DORJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 885 could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, A 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. [Para 6) [890-A-C] 2.2. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and B ... 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 c balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. [Para 8) (888-F-G] 2.3. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly 0 assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished. [Para 8] [888-H; 889-A-B] 2.4. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as E to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience F of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. [Para 9) (889-C] 2.5. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality G a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involvingAfuoral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public H 886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A 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 in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and B against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. [Para 10) [889-D-F] 2.6. Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate c 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 0 consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Para 11] [889-G-H; 890-A] E Sevaka Peruma/ Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 SC 1463 and State of M.P. v. Ghanashyam Singh, 2003 (8) sec 13, relied on. Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of Callifomia, 402 US F 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711, referred to Case Law Reference: AIR 1991 SC 1463 Relied on Para 6 G 2003 (8) sec 13 Referred to Para 7 402 US 183: 28 l.D. 2d 711 Referred to Para 8 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDIC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.