LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus BABLU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 9 S.C.R. 467 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BAB LU (Criminal Appeal No. 1845 of 2014) AUGUST 26, 2014. [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A 8 ss. 354 and 323 - Accus_ed outraging the modesty of a c woman - Conviction and sentence of six months imprisonment by trial court - High Court maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to the period undergone i.e. 21 days - Held: High Court in a very casual manner reduced the sentence merely on the ground that the accused D is first offender - If such a view is taken, the accused, who commit such offences, will be emboldened and repeat such crime, which is totally detrimental to the society - Impugned order of High Court reducing the sentence is set aside and, to avoid miscarriage of justice, sentence imposed by trial · E court is restored - Sentence/sentencing - Crimes against women. Sentence/sentencing: Six months imprisonment imposed by trial court for F outraging the modesty'of a woman - Plea' for leniency and to maintain the sentence of period already undergone i.e. 21 days as reduced by High Court - Held: social impact of the crime where it relates to offences against women involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency, which have great impact G on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment - Court must not only keep in view the rights of the "victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of 467 H 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A appropriate punishment - Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counter-productive in the long run and against the interest of the society. 8 The instant appeal was filed against the order of the High Court reducing the sentence to the period already undergone i.e. 21 days from six months imprisonment awarded by the trial court u/ss 323 and 354 IPC to the accused who was found guilty of outraging the modesty of a woman. It was contended for the appellant-State that C the High Court erred in reducing the sentence merely on the round that the respondent-accused was a first time offender and was facing trial since 2003. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is well settled proposition of law that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime E and manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence commensurate with the gravity and nature of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. F It is, therefore, the solemn duty of the Court to strike a proper balance while awarding sentence as awarding a lesser sentence encourages any criminal and, as a result of the same, society suffers. [para 11) [473-C, DJ G Sevaka Perumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1991 (2) SCR711 = (1991) 3 SCC 471; Dhananjoy Chatterjee@ Dhana vs. State of West Bengal 1994 (1) SCR 37 = (1994) 2 SCC 220; Mahesf'I. and others vs. State of Madhya . Pradesh, 1987 (2) SCR 710 = (1987) 3 SCC 80, Hazara H Singh versus Raj Kumar 2013 (5) SCR 979 = (2013) 9 sec STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BABLU 469 516; Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat, 2006 A (1) SCR 477 = (2006) 2 SCC 359; Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat 2009 (8) SCR 719 = (2009) 7 sc.c 254 - relied on. 1.2. Indisputably, imposition of sentence without 8 considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime where it relates to offonces against women involving moral turpitude or- fTIOral delinquency, which have great impact on social order and public interest, C cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be counter- productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by st~ing D of deterrence in built in the sentencing system. [para 18) [477-E-F] 1.3. It is reiterated that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do mor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.