LexSOMAN versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 1155 SOMAN v STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal Nos.1533-1534 of 2005) DECEMBER 14, 2012. [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] [KERALA] ABKARI ACT: A B ss.55(a) and (i), 57A(2)(ii) and 58 - Sale by accused, a c retail vendor, of spurious liquor adulterated with methyl alcohol - Death of one person while others developed serious sickness - High Court taking into account the consequences of the culpable act, enhanced the sentence from two years RI, as awarded by trial court, to 5 years RI - Held: High Court 0 was fully justified in taking info account the death of a person, as a result of consuming the illicit liquor, sold by the appellant as a ground for enhancing his sentence from two years to five years RI - There was absolutely no illegality or lack of jurisdiction in the order of High Court - However, in view of E the fact that in the case of the supplier co-accused, sentence of life imprisonment has been reduced to 10 years RI, sentence of appellant also reduced to 3 years RI being minimum u/s.57A(2)(ii) -.Sentence I Sentencing. SENTENCE I SENTENCING: Awarding of appropriate punishment - Taking into consideration the consequences of culpable act and its impact on other people - Principles from judicial pronouncements, culled out. The appellant, a retail vendor, was one of the accused in the case of supply of spurious liquor, contaminated with methyl alcohol, consumption whereof 1155 F G H 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A took the lives of 31 people and more than 500 developed serious sickness out of which six lost their vision completely. The medical evidence and the chemical analysis established that by consuming the liquor adulterated with methyl alcohol, sold by the appellant, B one person died and several others became seriously sick. The trial court convicted the appellant u/ss 55(a) and (i), 57A and 58 of the [Kerala] Abkari Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on ach count except c u/s 57A. He was also convicted u/s 201 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.5,000/- . The accused as well as the State filed appeals. The High Court dismissed the appeals of the accused including the one filed by the appellant, and 0 dealing with question of sentence on the basis of the State's appeal, enhanced appellant's sentence of imprisonment from 2 years to 5 years. In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was contended for the appellant that the death of a person as E a result of sale of spurious liquor could not have been a ground for imposition of a heavier sentence; and that his conviction was not maintainable u/s.57(2)(ii). The question before the Court was: whether or not F the consequences of a culpable act and its impact on other people can be a relevant consideration for imposing a heavier punishment, of course, within the limits fixed by the law. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Punishment should acknowledge the sanctity of human life. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is at the heart of the criminal justice delivery, but in our country, it is the weakest part of the H administration of criminal justice. There are no legislative SOMAN v. STATE OF KERALA 1157 or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the trial court A in meting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of this Court carefully, it would appear that this Court takes into account a combination of d~fferent factors while B exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation etc. [para 12-13 and 21] [1169-C-D-H; 1170-A; 1174-C-D] State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar 2008 (8) SCR 57 4 = 2008 (7) SCC 550; Ramashraya Chakravarti v. State of Madhya C Pradesh 1976 (2) SCR 703=1976 (1) SCC 281, Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of WB. 1994 (1) SCR 37 = 1994 (2) SCC 220; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ghanshyam Singh 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 618 = 2003 (8) SCC 13, State of Kamataka v. Puttaraja 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 274 = 2004 D (1) SCC 475, Union of India v. Ku/deep Singh 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 526 = 2004 (2) SCC 590, Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another v. State of Gujarat and others 2006 (1) SCR 477 = 2006 (2) SCC 359; Siddarama and others v. State of Kamataka 2006 (
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.