LexSIDDARAMA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SIDDARAMA AND ORS. v. ST A TE OF KARNA T AKA SEPTEMBER 15. 2006 B [ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] c Penal Code, 1860: Section 32611./9-·Conviction altered from uls. 307/ 149 to one uls 6//49-Sentence. however, enhanced by the High Courr-Held. on facts custodial sentence reduced but fine enhanced. The appellants and 9 others faced trial for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Trial Court D convicted accused numbers I to 6 and 8 to 13 and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 341 read with Section 149 IPC, and in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, each was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a line of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. The judgment was assailed before the High Court E both by the accused persons and State. While accused persons questioned conviction and setence, State on the other hand prayed for enhancement of sentence. While maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed in respect of the offence relatable to Section 143, 147 and 341 read with Section 149 IPC and the consequential sentence the conviction in terms of Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC was altered to Section 326 read with Section 149 F IPC and the sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment with a line of Rs. 500/- was found to be appropriate, by the High Court. It was contended by the appellants that the sentence is highly disproportionate to the nature of the offence committed when the prosecution G version itself is to the effect that the allegations had foundation on political differences. It was contended on behalf of the respondent-State that this is a case to which Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is clearly applicable. More than 5 accused persons were involved. The sentence according to him is liberal. I-I 276 - - • -- SIDDARAMA v. STA TE OF KARNA T AKA 277 Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD 1.1. 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 could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper setence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or B committed etc. 1281-E, Fl Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu, AIR (1991) SC 1463, referred to. 1.2. For deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an C offence, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be given due consid1 ~ration, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which as crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. 1282-D, El D Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711, referred to. 1.3. Imposition of sentence without considering its affect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of E the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences relating the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances which have great impact not only on the health fabric but also on the social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attiude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time or personal inconvenience in respect of such offences will be result-wise F counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. 1283-A-C! Dhananjoy Chatte1jee v. State of W.B., (199412 SCC 220, referred to. 1.4. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflects public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. (283-D, El G H 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A Union of India v. Ku/deep Singh, 1200412 SCC 590; Abu Ram v. Mukna B and Ors., 12005110 SCC 597 and Shailesh Jaswantbhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1200612 SCC 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.