LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus GAJENDRA SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008) 11 S.C.R. 816 STATE OF RAJASTHAN II. GAJENDRA SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2008) AUGUST 4, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Sentence/Sentencing - Conviction uls 376 /PC - Trial c . court imposing sentence of ten years R1 - Sentence reduced to five years (below the minimum prescribed) by High Court - Propriety of - Held: Proviso to s. 376 /PC permitting the court to reduce the sentence below the minimum prescribed only on recording of 'adequate and special reasons' - Failure on 0 the part of High Court to record such reasons, does not war- rant reducing of the sentence - Criminal law adheres to the principle of proportionality in sentencing -It is duty of the court to award proper sentence in view of the nature and manner of commission of offence -Undue sympathy to impose inad- equate sentence would do more harm to justice system - E Sentence is modified to seven years i.e. minimum prescribed - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 proviso. Words and Phrases- 'Rape'- Meaning of in the context of /PC. I [_ "t -I ..-- I I- F Respondent was tried u/ss 376, 323 and 341 IPC. Trial ,.. court convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years ~ '\ for the offence u/s 376 IPC. Respondent filed appeal pray- ing for reduction of sentence. High Court, though noted that the minimum sentence u/s 376 IPC is· seven years, yet G reduced the sentence to five years RI in view of proviso to the Section, permitting the court to reduce the sentence below the minimum prescribed. Hence the present appeal. H Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 816 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. GAJENDRA 817 SINGH - ,,, HELD: 1.1 The High Court was not justified in reduc- A ing the sentence below the prescribed minimum. The re- spondent shall serve the minimum of seven years rigor- ous imprisonment. In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the statutory requirement is that the Court has to record "adequate and special reasons" B ,,. in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the Court to impose a sentence less than the pre- scribed minimum. The reason has not only to be adequate but also special. What is adequate and special would de- pend upon several factors and no strait-jacket formula can c 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 requirement in law as to adequate and special reasons is cumulative. The High Court has not recorded any reason, much less any adequate and special reasons for reducing the sen- D • 'f tence. Paras 23, 24 and 25] [826 E,F,G, 826 G,H, 827 A] 1.2 Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, E law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective ma- chinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tampered with mercy where it warrants to be. The F .,...., .. facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and com- mitted, the motive for commission of the crime, the con- duct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which G would enter into the area of consideration. [Para 12] [822 F,G,H, 823, A,8] .. ,,. 1.3 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- H 818 SUPREME COURT REPORT;> [2008] 11 S.C.R. A vating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed ar.e to be delicately balanced ·on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispas- sionate manner by the Court. [Para 16] [824 E,F] Dennis Councle MCGOautha v. State of Ca/lifornia: 402 8 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 - referred to. 1.4 The criminal law adheres· in general to· the prin- ciple of proportionality in prescribing liability according ·to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordi- -c narily allows some significant discretion to.the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, 'presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle consideratio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.