Shyam Narain vs.The State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 1860 of 2010, Decided on May 15,
2013
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed:
“Primarily it is to be borne
in mind that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be
imposed regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which
the offence has been committed. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence
is based on the principle that the accused must realise that the crime
committed by him has not only created a dent in his life but also a concavity
in the social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is designed so that the
individuals in the society which ultimately constitute the collective do not
suffer time and again for such crimes. It serves as a deterrent. True it is, on
certain occasions, opportunities may be granted to the convict for reforming
himself but it is equally true that the principle of proportionality between an
offence committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in view. While
carrying out this complex exercise, it is obligatory on the part of the Court
to see the impact of the offence on the society as a whole and its ramifications
on the immediate collective as well as its repercussions on the victim.”
[Para 11]
“As is seen, various concepts,
namely, gravity of the offence, manner of its execution, impact on the society,
repercussions on the victim and proportionality of punishment have been
emphasized upon.” [Para 16]
The Court on the
facts of the case held:
“In the case at hand, we are
concerned with the justification of life imprisonment in a case of rape
committed on an eight year old girl, helpless and vulnerable and, in a way,
hapless. The victim was both physically and psychologically vulnerable. It is
worthy to note that any kind of sexual assault has always been viewed with
seriousness and sensitivity by this Court. [Para 16]
“It is seemly to note that the
legislature, while prescribing a minimum sentence for a term which shall not be
less than ten years, has also provided that the sentence may be extended upto
life. The legislature, in its wisdom, has left it to the discretion of the
Court. Almost for the last three decades,
this Court has been expressing its agony and distress pertaining to the
increased rate of crimes against women. The eight year old girl, who was
supposed to spend time in cheerfulnesss, was dealt with animal passion and her
dignity and purity of physical frame was shattered. The plight of the child and
the shock suffered by her can be well visualised. The torment on the child has
the potentiality to corrode the poise and equanimity of any civilized society.
The age old wise saying “child is a gift of the providence” enters into the
realm of absurdity. The young girl, with efflux of time, would grow with
traumatic experience, an unforgettable shame. She shall always be haunted by
the memory replete with heavy crush of disaster constantly echoing the chill
air of the past forcing her to a state of nightmarish melancholia. She may not
be able to assert the honour of a woman for no fault of hers”.
“…….in the present case, the
victim is an eight year old girl who possibly would be deprived of the dreams
of “Spring of Life” and might be psychologically compelled to remain in the
“Torment of Winter”. When she suffers, the collective at large also suffers.
Such a singular crime creates an atmosphere of fear which is historically
abhorred by the society. It demands just punishment from the court and to such
a demand, the courts of law are bound to respond within legal parameters. It is
a demand for justice and the award of punishment has to be in consonance with
the legislative command and the discretion vested in the court. The mitigating factors
put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant are meant to invite mercy but
we are disposed to think that the factual matrix cannot allow the rainbow of
mercy to magistrate. Our judicial discretion impels us to maintain the sentence
of rigorous imprisonment for life and, hence, we sustain the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence passed by the High Court”.
The Court also
noted following case laws:
Jameel v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 532 wherein this Court, speaking about the
concept of sentence, has laid down that it is 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. The sentencing courts are expected to
consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of
sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the
offence.”
Shailesh
Jasvantbhai and another v. State of Gujarat and others (2006) 2 SCC 359, the
Court has observed:
“Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: “State of
criminal law continues to be – as it should be -a decisive reflection of social
consciousness of society.” Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law
should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By
deft modulation, 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,
the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant
facts which would enter into the area of consideration”
State of M.P. v.
Babulal, AIR 2008 SC 582, two learned
Judges, while delineating about the adequacy of sentence, expressed:
“19. Punishment is the sanction imposed on the offender for the infringement
of law committed by him. Once a person is tried for commission of an offence
and found guilty by a competent court, it is the duty of the court to impose on
him such sentence as is prescribed by law. The award of sentence is
consequential on and incidental to conviction. The law does not envisage a person
being convicted for an offence without a sentence being imposed therefore.
20. The object of punishment has been succinctly stated in
Halsbury’s Laws of England, (4th Edition: Vol.II: para 482) thus:
“The aims of punishment are now considered to be retribution,
justice, deterrence, reformation and protection and modern sentencing policy
reflects a combination of several or all of these aims. The retributive element
is intended to show public revulsion to the offence and to punish the offender
for his wrong conduct. The concept of justice as an aim of punishment means
both that the punishment should fit the offence and also that like offences
should receive similar punishments. An increasingly important aspect of
punishment is deterrence and sentences are aimed at deterring not only the
actual offender from further offences but also potential offenders from
breaking the law. The importance of reformation of the offender is shown by the
growing emphasis laid upon it by much modern legislation, but judicial opinion
towards this particular aim is varied and rehabilitation will not usually be
accorded precedence over deterrence. The main aim of punishment in judicial
thought, however, is still the protection of society and the other objects
frequently receive only secondary consideration when sentences are being decided”.
Gopal Singh v.
State of Uttarakhand, 2013 (2) SCALE 533, while dealing with the philosophy of
just punishment which is the collective cry of the society, a two-Judge Bench has
stated that just punishment would be dependent on the facts of the case and
rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a
Judge nor
self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed
to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of.
Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on
the ground of discretion vested in a Court. The real requisite is to weigh the
circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors.
State of
Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75,
a threeJudge Bench opined that the courts must hear the loud cry for justice by
the society in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of
tender years and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of
the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the
court. It was further observed that to show mercy in the case of such a heinous
crime would be travesty of justice and
the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced.
State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Bodem Sundra Rao AIR 1996 SC
530, this Court noticed that crimes against women are on the rise and such
crimes are affront to the human dignity of the society and, therefore, imposition
of inadequate sentence is injustice to the victim of the crime in particular
and the society in general. After so observing, the learned Judges had to say
this: -
“The Courts have an obligation while awarding punishment to impose appropriate
punishment so as to respond to the society’s crime for justice against such
criminals. Public abhorrence of the crime needs a reflection through the
Court’s verdict in the measure of punishment. The Courts must not only keep in
view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and
the society at large while considering imposition of the appropriate
punishment.”
Follow the link for full text: