SUNIL DUTT SHARMA versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 1000 · Decided: 08-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 1000 
SUNIL DUTT SHARMA 
v. 
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 08, 2013 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.304-B - Dowry death - Conviction and sentence of life 
imprisonment awarded by courts below - Sentence, if 
excessive or disproportionate - Held: The principles of 
sentencing evolved by Supreme Court though largely in the 
D context of death penalty will be applicable to all lesser 
sentences so long as the sentencing judge is vested with the 
discretion to award a lesser or a higher sentence resembling 
the swing of the pendulum from the minimum to the 
maximum - Jn the instant case, the proved facts on the basis 
E of which offence u/s. 304-B was held to be established, while 
acquitting the accused-appellant of offence u/s. 302, do not 
disclose any extraordinary, perverse or diabolic act on his part 
to take an extreme view of the matter -- On a cumulative 
application of the principles that would be relevant to adjudge 
the crime and the criminal test, this is not a case where the 
F maximum punishment of life imprisonment ought to have 
been awarded At the same time, from the order of trial court, 
it is clear that some of the injuries on the deceased, though 
obviously not fatal injuries, are attributable to accused-
appellant and, as such, the minimum sentence prescribed i.e. 
G seven years would also not meet the ends of justice Rather 
a sentence of ten years RI would be appropriate - Ordered 
accordingly - Sentence/Sentencing - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - s.354(2). 
H 
1000 
SUNIL DUTT SHARMA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF 1001 
DELHI) 
Sentence/Sentencing: 
Sentence for offence punishable u/s 304-B /PC - Held: 
A 
In a situation where commission of an offence is held to be 
proved by means of a legal presumption the circumstances 
surrounding the crime to determine the presence of 8 
aggravating circumstances (crime test) may not be readily 
forthcoming unlike a case where there is evidence of overt 
criminal acts establishing the direct involvement of the 
accused with the crime to enable the court to come to specific 
conclusions with regard to the barbarous or depraved nature 
C 
of the crime committed - Necessity to combat the menace of 
demand for dowry or to prevent atrocities on women and like 
social evils as well as the necessity to maintain the purity of 
social conscience cannot be determinative of the quantum of 
sentence inasmuch as the said parameters would be 
common to all offences uls. 304-B /PC - It, therefore, cannot D 
be elevated to the status of acceptable jurisprudential 
principles to act as a rational basis for awarding varying 
degrees of punishment on a case to case basis - Factors to 
be taken into account while imposing the sentence uls 304 
/PC, discussed - Penal Code, 1860 - s.304-B. 
E 
The accused-appellant was tried for offences 
punishable u/ss. 302 and 304-B of IPC for causing the 
death of his wife in the night intervening 16/17.05.92. He 
was acquitted of the offence punishable u/s. 302, IPC on 
F 
the benefit of doubt. However, he was found guilty of the 
offence punishable u/s. 304-8, IPC and was sentenced to 
imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence was 
affirmed by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal, limited notice was issued only 
G 
as regards the sentence imposed on the accused-
appellant 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The power and authority conferred by use 
of the different expressions in various provisions of the 
Penal Code, indicate the enormous discretion vested in 
the courts in sentencing an offender who has been found 
guilty of commission of any particular offence. Nowhere, 
B either in the Penal Code nor in any other law in force, any 
prescription or norm or even guidelines governing the 
exercise of the vast discretion in the matter of sentencing 
has been laid down except s.354(2) of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 which, inter-alia, requires the 
c judgment of a court to state the reasons for the sentence 
awarded when the punishment prescribed is 
imprisonment for a term of years. [para 5] [1008-A-C] 
1.2 There is no reason that the principles of 
sentencing evolved by this Court over the years though 
D largely in the context of the death penalty will not be 
applicable to all lesser sentences so long as the 
sentencing judge is vested with

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