LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus PAPPU @ AJAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 793 -"y STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A v. PAPPU@ AJAY (Criminal Appeal No.1213 of 2008). AUGUST 4, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; S. 376(1) r/w s.511 and Ss. 324 and 452: c Sentencing - Trial Court convicting accused for c0.mmit- ting offences punishable u/s. 376(1) rlw s. 511 and Ss. 324 and 452 /PC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 4 years - High Court reducing the sentence to the period al- ready undergone viz. 5 months and 25 days - Correctness of D - Held: Incorrect- No reason indicated by the High Court while .... ..,._ directing reduction of sentence - It is duty of the Court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed - For deciding just and appropriate sentence, the aggravating and mitigating circum- E stances in which crime was· committed, to be delicately bal- anced in a dispassionate manner by the Court - Social im- pact of crime must not be lost sight of and per se require ex- emplary treatment - In the light of legal position on sentenc~ ing, the High Court's order clearly not sustainable and set aside F - Judgment of the trial court restored. • j Sentencing - Object and quantum of - Discussed. . Accused-respondent was convicted by the trlal court for committing the offences punishable under Sections G 376(1) read with Section 511 IPC and Sections 324 and 452 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous impris- onment for four years. In an appeal preferred by the ac- ' -~ cused against the order of the trial court, High Court held ·793 H 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R. ·A that since the re'spondent had undergone imprisonment for about five months and 25 days, the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone in respect of the first offence. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-State contended that considering the grav- B ity of the offence involved; the High Court ought not to have reduced the sentence to, the period undergone, f .,,, which was less than six ·months. Allowing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1.1 No reason has been indicated by the High Court to direct reduction of sentence. (Para -- 8) [797-F] 1.2. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates con- . flicting claims and· demands. Security of persons and 0 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 to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness -E would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protec- tion of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the objectof law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges con- F fronting the society. (Para - 9) [797 G-H, 798-A] · "Law in Changing. Society" by Friedman - referred to. 1.3 Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would. do .more harm to the justice system to undermine · G the publi.c confidence in the efficacy of law and society CQ.µld; npt_ long endure under such serious threats. It is, th,ere.for~ •. the duty of every court to. award proper sen- . tence t)aving regard to the nature 9f ~he offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. (Para H - 10) [798-D-E] , « I STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PAPPU 795 @AJAY -·,,- Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR (1991) A SC 1463 - relied on. 1.4 Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought ~ always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are de- ' -. termined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is ' J the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered 8 ~~ ~ to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keep- ~ ing him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic ~ results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious c and widespread. (Para - 11) [798 G-H, 799 A] 1.5 After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appro- priate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggra- D vating and mitigating factors
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.