SI Anand Parkash v. Jai Kumar & Anr

1. Respondent no.1, who appears in person, submits that he is unable to engage a Lawyer. Accordingly, Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate, who is present in Court, is appointed as an Amicus Curiae on behalf of respondent no.1.

2. Present appeal has been filed by appellant/State under Section 377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order on sentence dated 21.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge NDPS (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in FIR No.249/2009 registered under Sections 307/34 of the IPC at Police Station Khayala, whereby the respondents have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five months for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the IPC and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine, further undergo Simple Imprisonment for two weeks. The State is 2016:DHC:2498-DB primarily aggrieved by the quantum of sentence which has been awarded by the learned trial court.

3. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the trial court are as under:

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered by the victim and taking into consideration the testimonies of the witnesses, the sentence awarded to the respondents herein by the trial court is grossly inadequate and contrary to the provisions of law. It is further submitted that by awarding a sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five months for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the IPC together with fine, interest of justice has not been served. Counsel further submits that the offence committed by the respondents attracts an imprisonment up to ten years/life imprisonment. It is contended that the principle of proportionality in fixing liability according to culpability has not been adhered to. It is also contended that by imposing a grossly inadequate sentence, the trial court has done an injustice to the victim of the crime and to the society. Counsel, thus, prays that impugned order on sentence dated 21.11.2014 be modified and the period of imprisonment qua the respondents should be enhanced.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 has strenuously argued before this Court that respondent no.2 and also respondent no.1 were about 21 years of age at the time when the offence was committed. It is also submitted that the trial court has failed to consider the defence of the respondents. Additionally, counsel submits that in case the respondents have to serve further sentence there is every possibility that they may, instead of being reformed, choose the path of a criminal. Counsel further submits that the respondents are first-time offenders and have clean antecedents, besides their conduct in jail was satisfactory.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also relied upon Karamjit Singh v. State of Punjab, reported at 2009 (9) SCALE 235 wherein the Supreme Court did not interfere in the judgment rendered by the High Court where the sentence of one year was granted. However, the request for probation was refused having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, also considered their rival submissions and also examined the judgment rendered by the learned trial court.

9. In the case of State GNCT of Delhi vs. Mukesh, 2011(3) CRIMES 111, it has been observed that interference of the appellate Court on the quantum of sentence should be rare and only in exceptional cases. Appellate Court should exercise and interfere with sentencing discretion of the Trial Court in a given case where the “inadequacy” of sentence is gross or glaring or shocks the Court’s conscience.

10. In Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77, it has been ruled that primarily it is to be borne in mind that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be imposed keeping in view 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 realize 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 a just punishment is designed so that the individuals in the society do not suffer time and again for such crimes, for it serves as a deterrent. The Court observed, “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. It has been further opined that 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”.

11. In Sevaka Perumal and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported at (1991) 3 SCC 471, after referring to the decision in Mahesh v. State of M.P., reported at (1987) 3 SCC 80, the Court observed that 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 serious threats. The Court further observed that if the courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance and, therefore, 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.

12. In Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175, the Court while giving emphasis on relevance of imposition of adequate sentencing in the social context observed as under:-

13. In Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734, the Court, discussing about the sentencing policy, had to say this: -