LexSTATE OF U.P. versus SATTAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 643 -· f STATE OF U.P. A v. SATT AN @ SA TYE NORA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 314-315 of 2001) FEBRUARY 27, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Sentence/Sentencing: c Imposition of sentence - Determining factors - Discussed. ,.. Death sentence - Murder of six members of a family t including helpless women and children in a brutal manner - D Held: Case falls under rarest of rare category - High Court effed in altering death sentence to life sentence - Criminal law - Doctrine of proportionality - Administration of criminal justice - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302. Penal Code, 1860: E s.302 - Acquittal by High Court - State's appeal - Held: " Evidence of involvement of acquitted accused not free from doubt- High Court was right in acquitting them. In these appeals, State questioned the order of High F Court altering death sentence to life sentence of accused persons after upholding conviction for killing six members of a family and order of acquittal of other accused persons. G ~ Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Security of persons and property of the 643 H 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R. A 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 B meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. In operating the c 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 in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the 0 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. For instance a murder committed due to deep-seated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an organised crime or mass murders of innocent people E would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence 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, F therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. [Paras 11 and 12] [657-G-H; 658-A-G] G Sahdeo v. State of U.P. (2004) SCC (Crl.) 1873; Ram H Anup Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 686; Mahesh v. State of M.P. (1987) 2 SCR 710 and Sevaka Peruma/ etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu AIR (1991) SC 1463, relied on. -· , + STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS. 645 2.1. The criminal law adheres in general to the A principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle B considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of c the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping 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 0 cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. [Para 13] [658-G-H; 659-A-C] 2.2. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of E sentences. 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.