STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus MUNNA CHOUBEY AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 24-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

)' 
" 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
MUNNA CHOUBEY AND ANR. 
JANUARY 24, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) 
B 
> 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Rape-Sessions Court sentencing 
accused to RI for seven years-In appeal, High Court reducing the sentence 
on ground that the accused belonged to rural area-Held, the reason indicated c 
by High Court cannot be considered either "adequate" or "special" so as to 
reduce the sentence. 
Sentencing-Duty of the Court to award appropriate sentence-
Discussed. 
Respondents were convicted by the Sessions Judge and sentenced to D 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for an offence 
of rape. They preferred appeal in High Court praying for reduction in 
sentence without challenging the finding of their conviction. High Court 
reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the respondents, 
on the sole ground that they belonged to rural areas. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-State submitted that the reduction 
of sentence by High Court was contrary to the law laid down by this Court; 
and that while dealing with the offence of rape which was established, the 
direction for reduction of sentence should not have been given on the 
specious reasoning that the respondents belonged to the rural areas. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the 
corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts 
and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner G 
in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the 
..... 
crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other 
attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area 
of consideration. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence 
781 
H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005] I S.C.R. 
A having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was 
executed or committed etc. 1785-G-H; 786-A, DI 
Mahesh v. State of MP., 119871 2 SCR 710 and Sevaka Perumal etc. 
v. State of Tamil Naidu, AIR (1991) SC 1463, relied on. 
B 
2. 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 
which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the 
basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the 
C Court. 1787-B-CJ 
Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat, 119941 4 SCC 353, 
referred to. 
Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of Callifornia, 402 US 183 and 
D 28 L.D. 2d 711, referred to. 
3. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social 
order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact 
of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, 
kidnapping, misappropriation oi public money, treason and other offences 
E involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency 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 meagre 
sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of 
time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in 
the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and 
F strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. 
1787-G-H; 788-A-BI 
G 
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of WB., 1199412 SCC 220; Ravji v. State 
of Rajasthan, 119961 2 SCC 175 and State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh, 
120031 8 sec 13, referred to. 
4. In both sub-sections (I) and (2) of Section 376, minimum sentences 
are prescribed. But both in cases of sub-sections (I) and (2), the Court 
has the discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment less than the 
prescribed minimum for 'adequate and special reasons'. If the Court does 
H not mention such reasons in the judgment there is no scope for awarding 
STATEv. M. CHOUBEY [PASAYAT, J.] 
783 
a sentence lesser than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only A 
,. 
to be adequate but also special. What is adequate and special would depend 
upon several factors and no strait-jacket formula can be indicated. What 
is applicable to trial Courts regarding recording reasons for a departure 
from minimum sentence is equally applicable to the High Court. The o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.