LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus MURALIDHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 4 S.C.R. 400 STATE OF KARNATAKA V. MURALIDHAR Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2002 MARCH 16, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Sentence/Sentencing: c Sentence for imprisonment and fine for conviction u/ss. 279, 338 and 304 A /PC - Reduction of by confining it to fine and waiving of custodial imprisonment - On appeal, held: High court order not justified - Custodial sentence was waived without indicating any reason - Order of trial court restored - 0 Penal Code, 1860 - s. 71 E Award of Punishment - Criterion for determining - Discussed. Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-A - Applicability of - Discussed. Words and Phrases - 'Negligence' - Meaning of in the context of s. 304 A /PC. Trial court awarded imprisonment and imposed fine for conviction of the respondent-accused u/ss. 279, 338 F and 304-A IPC. High Court, in revision, taking note of s. 71 IPC, waived the custodial sentence and imposed fine. Hence the present appeal. G H Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 High Court has without considering the relevant aspects and even without indicating any reason, waived the custodial sentence and imposed only fine. The judgment therefore is clearly unsustainable. [Para 26] [414-D] 400 • > STATE OF KARNATAKA V MURALIDHAR 401 1.2 Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence A 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 duly of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and B the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. · [Para 21] [411-C] Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu Al R 1991 SC 1463 - relied on. 1.3 After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in c _.. which a crime has been committed are to be delicately 0 balanced on the bas.is of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may 'provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity E of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each ~ case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished. [Para 22] [413-A-D] Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of Callifornia 402 F US 183: 2~ L.D. 2d 711 - referred to. 1.4 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 to G impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. [Para 23] [413-E] 1.5 Imposition of sentence without considering its H 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C R A effect on the social order in many cases may ·be in reality A \. r 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 involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency B which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympat~etic view merely .. on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences .. c will be result-wise 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. [Para 24] [413-F-H; 414-A] 1.6 The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate D 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 E 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 crimina
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.