UNION OF INDIA versus KULDEEP SINGH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 08-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
KULDEEP SINGH 
DECEMBER 8, 2003 
B 
[DORAJSWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, l 985~Sections 
9-A, 25-A and 29-Sentence-Reduction in-Propriety of-880 litres of a 
controlled substance used in manufacture of heroine recovered from 
C accused-Sentence reduced by the High Court taking into account age of 
father of accused and accused not being habitiial offender-Held, the 
grounds for reduction of sentence untenable-Criminal Law-Sentence. 
Criminal Law--Sentence:........Reduction of-Discretion with the appel-
D late court-Exercise of-High Court reducing sentence in case of a person 
in possession of large amount of material used for manufacture of narcotic 
drugs-Held, discretion not properly exercised. 
Words & Phrases: 'Discretion '-Meaning of 
E 
From the kotha belonging to the accused, 880 litres of Acitic N 
Hydride (used for manufacture of heroine) were recovered. The Trial 
Court convicted the accused for commission of offences under Sections 
9A/25A and Sections 9A/25A read with Section 29 of the ·Narcotics 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to 10 
F years' rigorous imprisonment. 
On appeal by the accused, High Court upheld the conviction but 
reduced the sentence of the accused to 6\12 years. The High Court took 
into consideration the fact that the accused was not a habitual offender, 
G his father was 85 years old, mother of the accused had died and that 
there was no other earning member in the family of the accused. 
The State filed appeal before the Court challenging the quantum 
of sentence awarded to the accused. The accused contended that no 
minimum sentence was prescribed for the offences for which the 
H accused had been convicted and therefore, the exercise of discretion by 
526 
UNION OF INDIA v. KULDEEP SINGH 
527 
the High Court in reducing the sentence of the accused to 6'/z years A 
should not be interfered with. 
Allowing the appeal and restoring the sentence awarded by the 
Trial Court, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting B 
claims and demand. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict when 
living law must find answers to the new challenges and the courts are 
required to mould the sentencing system' to meet the challenges. In 
operating the sentencing system, law :;hould adopt the corrective ma-
chinery or the deterrence based on factual matirx. By deft modulation C 
sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with 
mercy where it warrants to be? 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 conduct of 
the accused, and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts D 
which would enter into the area of consideration. (534-D-F) 
1.2. 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 E 
serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court to award 
proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the 
manner to which it was executed or committed etc. (534-G-H) 
Sevaka Perumal Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (1991) SC 1463, F 
referred to. 
-:·'" 
1.3. The criminal law adheres in general to the 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 the sentence in each case, G 
presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations 
of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. 
Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in 
principle, and in spite of errant nations, it remains a strong influence 
in determination of sentences. (535-A-B; C-D) 
H 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
1.4. 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 circum-
stances in which a crime has been committed are to -be delicately 
balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassion-
B ate manner by the Court. [535-F-Gl 
Dennies Councle MCG Dautha v. State of California, 402 US 
183 : 28 L.D. 2d 711, re

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