LexSIRIYA@ SHRI LAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 8 S.C.R. 422 SIRIYA@ SHRI LAL V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2008) MAY 13, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 - Rape - By father of his daughter - Three eye-witnesses to the incident - Conviction c and sentence of life imprisonment by courts below - On ap- peal held: In view of the evidence conviction and sentence justified Sentencing - Sentencing system - Principles to be fol- lowed - Held: Principle of proportionality is a general rule - D But in practice this rule is often deviated - Adoption of correc- tive or deterrent machinery in sentencing should be based on factual matrix, by delicately balancing the mitigating and ag- gravating circumstances - Courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the new challenges. E Appellant-accused was charged for having raped his daughter. Three persons were eye-witnesses to the inci- dent. Prosecutrix lodged FIR against the accused. Trial court convicted him uls 376 IPC and sentence him to un- dergo imprisonment for life. High Court confirmed the F conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The evidence on records clinchingly nails the appellant as the offender. The father is supposed to G protect the dignity and honour of his daughter. This is a fundamental facet of human life If the protector becomes the violator, the offence assumes a greater degree of vul- nerability. The sanctity of father and daughter relationship g.ets polluted. It becomes an unpardonable act. It is not h 422 SIRIYA@ SHRI LAL v. STATE OF 423 MADHYA PRADESH only a loathsome sin, but also abhorrent. The case at hand A is a sad reflection on the present day society where a most platonic relationship has been soiled by the pervert and degrading act of the father. [Para 5] [427-D-F] 2.1. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates con- flicting claims and demands. Security of persons and 8 property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and. the courts are required to mould the sentencing system C to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protec" tion of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone D of the edifice of "order" should· meet the challenges con- fronting the society. [Para 7] [427-G, 428-A,8] .. 2.2 In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process E be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of F weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consid- eration. [Para 7] [428-C,D] 2.3 Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence G 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 aware] proper sen- tence having regard to the nature of the offence and the H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A manner in which it was executed or committed etc. [Para 8] [428-E,F] Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 (3) sec 471 - relied on. s 2.4 The criminal law adheres in general to the prin- ciple of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordi- narily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit c sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of cul- pability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime, yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the cor- D rectional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to jus- tify a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.