Evolving a uniform sentencing policy is a tough call; SC.pdf

7/17/2019 Evolving a uniform sentencing policy is a tough call; SC.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolving-a-uniform-sentencing-policy-is-a-tough-call-scpdf 1/21Page 1

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -1-

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 21!

"ARISIN# OUT OF SLP "Crl.$ NO. 444 OF 21!$

%.P. SIN#H &&&APPELLANT

'(.

STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &&RESPONDENT

O R D E R

'.#OPALA #O)DA* J.

Leave granted.

2. The present criminal appeal is directed against

the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2014

passed by the High Court o !elhi at "e# !elhi in

Crl. $. "o. %&' o 200'( #herein it has airmed

the conviction against the appellant or the

oence punishable under )ection ' o the

*revention o Corruption $ct( 1+'' ,hereinater

-the *.C. $ct/ and reduced sentence a#arded rom 2



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -2-

years to 1 year retaining s.&000 ine imposed

#ith deault sentence o 2 months ater

reappreciation o evidence o the prosecution

#itnesses no.( + and 13 and accepted their

evidence as cogent to prove the charge levelled

against him in eercise o its appellate

jurisdiction. 5arious legal contentions have been

urged by the learned counsel on behal o the

appellant beore this Court 6uestioning the

correctness o the judgment and order reducing the

sentence o imprisonment imposed upon him rom 2

years to 1 year #ith ine amount o s.&(000 and

in deault sentence as mentioned above. This Court

vide its order dated 02.02.201& has issued notice

to the respondent to reconsider the 6uantum o

sentence subject to the condition that the

appellant surrender to the Central 7ail( Tihar to

undergo sentence and ile proo thereo #ithin a

#ee8. $ccordingly( he surrendered to the Central



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -3-

7ail( Tihar on 04.02.201& in case 9: "o. 2+ o

1++%.

3. ;r. adha )hyam 7ena( learned counsel appearing

on behal o the appellant contends that both the

)pecial Court and the High Court have erred in

convicting the appellant despite the act that the

main accused ;s. ;anju ;athur has been ac6uitted

or the oence under )ections %('( 13,1/,d/ read

#ith )ection 13,2/ o the *.C. $ct( on appreciation

o evidence on record and that the prosecution

ailed to prove the guilt against her. )he #as

ac6uitted rom the charges( #hich order has

attained inality. The learned counsel has urther

contended that the courts belo# have erred in

recording a inding o guilt on the charge as

against the appellant despite the act that there

is no evidence on record to prove the same. The

learned counsel has urther contended that the High

Court has erred in upholding the judgment and order

o the )pecial 7udge and did not consider the



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -4-

essential ingredients o )ection ' o the *.C. $ct(

#hich are that the accused should accept or agree

to accept or even attempt to obtain gratiication

rom someone( the gratiication is or himsel or

or someone else and its motive or re#ard is to

induce a public servant by corrupt or illegal means

to do or orebear to do any oicial act or to sho#

avour or disavour to someone etc.

4. :t is urther contended by ;r. adha )hyam

7ena( learned counsel appearing on behal o the

appellant that the prosecution has ailed to prove

the involvement o someone other than the

appellant. 9urther( it is alternatively contended

by him that the appellant had undergone agony and

trauma since the litigation has been going on or

the last 1% years. :n this bac8drop( the High Court

ought to have imposed the minimum sentence o

months as provided under )ection ' o the *.C. $ct

in eercise o its discretionary po#er. Hence the

present appeal urging various grounds.



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -5-

&. <e have heard the learned counsel or the

parties and have careully eamined the concurrent

indings and reasons recorded by the appellate

court in its judgment ater reappreciation o

evidence in eercise o its appellate jurisdiction.

The High Court ater adverting to the evidence o

the prosecution #itnesses has concurred #ith the

indings o act on the charge ramed against the

appellant under )ection ' o the *.C. $ct. <hile

concurring #ith the indings o act on conviction

o the charge ramed against the appellant( the

High Court has modiied the sentence imposed upon

him rom 2 years to 1 year #ith no change in the

ine amount and the deault sentence as a#arded by

the learned )pecial 7udge.

. <e have careully eamined the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court #ith a

vie# to ascertain #hether the sentence imposed on

the appellant by the High Court can be modiied to

the minimum sentence o months as provided under



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -6-

the provisions o )ection ' o the *.C. $ct. :t is

an undisputed act that the main accused "o. 2 has

been ac6uitted rom the charges ramed against her

by the )pecial Court. The learned )pecial 7udge( on

appreciation o evidence on record has held that

the prosecution had ailed to prove the charge

against the accused "o. 2( #ho is the public

servant. 9urther( pursuant to our order dated

02.02.201& the appellant surrendered to the Central

7ail( Tihar on 04.02.201& in 9: case "o. 2+ o

1++%. He has served the sentence or more than %.&

months as per the certiicate dated .+.201& issued

by the !eputy )uperintendent( Central 7ail( Tihar

and has paid the ine amount a#arded by the )pecial

Court #hich ine amount as sentence is airmed by

the High Court. Having regard to the acts and

circumstances o the case( particularly in the

light o the act that the main accused "o. 2(

against #hom the charges #ere levelled under

)ections %( '( 13 ,1/ ,d/ read #ith )ection 13 ,2/



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -7-

o the *.C. $ct( #as ac6uitted or #ant o evidence

on record( #e are o the vie# that justice #ould be

met i the period o sentence already undergone by

the appellant be treated as the sentence to be

imposed or the conviction on the charge ramed

against him. To that etent the impugned order o

sentence imposed by the High Court is modiied and

#e pass the ollo#ing order =

This criminal appeal is partly allo#ed and

#e modiy the order impugned #ith regard to

the period o sentence already undergone by

the appellant is treated as sentence imposed

upon him or the charge proved against him.

To this etent the impugned order o

sentence o 1 year imposed by the High Court

is modiied. :n vie# o the above modiied

order o sentence( #e direct the

)uperintendent o Central 7ail( Tihar to

release the appellant orth#ith rom the



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -8-

custody( i he is not re6uired in any other

criminal case.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&J.

+T.S. THA%UR,

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&J.+'. #OPALA #O)DA,

Ne- Del/*

Septe0ber 2* 21!



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -9-

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2015(Arisin !"# !$ SLP (Cr%.& N!. 444 !$ 2015&

'.P. Sin )A**+%%,n#

-+rs"s

S#,#+ !$ NCT !$ D+%i )R+s*!n+n#

O R D E R

T.S. Thakur, J.

1. I ,/+ , #+ ,/,n#,+ !$ !in #r!" #+ !r+r

*r!*!s+ Es#+++ Br!#+r 3!, J. ,n $in s+%$

in !*%+#+ ,r+++n# i# #+ /i+ #,7+n His L!rsi*

#,# #+ s+n#+n+ ,,r+ #! #+ ,**+%%,n# +s+r/+s #! +

r+"+ #! #+ *+ri! ,%r+, "n+r!n+ i. N!#

+,"s+ #+ r+,s!nin i/+n in s"**!r# !$ #,# /i+ is in ,n



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -10-

,nn+r +$ii+n# "# !n% #! "##r+ss #+ !n%"si!n ,rri/+

,# is L!rsi* I *r!*!s+ #! , , $+ %in+s !$ !n.

2. T+ $,#s #! #+ +8#+n# r+%+/,n# ,/+ ++n +%"i,#+ in

#+ !r+r *r!*!s+ 3!, J. I# !"% #+r+$!r+ s+r/+

n! *"r*!s+ #! r+,*i#"%,#+ #+ s,+ !/+r ,,in. 9,# is

i*!r#,n# is #,# #+ *rini*,% ,"s+ ,s ++n ,:"i##+ !$

#+ ,r+s $r,+ ,,ins# +r i%+ #+ !"r#s +%! ,/+

!n"rr+n#% !n/i#+ #+ ,**+%%,n# $!r #+ !$$+n+s

*"nis,%+ "n+r S+#i!n ; !$ #+ Pr+/+n#i!n !$ C!rr"*#i!n

A# 1<;;. In #+ *r+s+n# ,**+,% + , iss"+ n!#i+

%ii#+ #! #+ :"+s#i!n !$ :",n#" !$ s+n#+n+ #,# !"% +

,,r+ #! #+ ,**+%%,n# in #+ *+"%i,r $,#s ,n

ir"s#,n+s !$ #+ ,s+. T+ Tri,% C!"r# , ,s n!#i+

3!, J. ,,r+ ri!r!"s i*ris!n+n# $!r , *+ri! !$ #!

+,rs ,n , $in+ !$ Rs. 5000=> #! #+ ,**+%%,n# +r+in i

,s ++n in ,**+,% r+"+ #+ Hi C!"r# #! !n+ +,r

+si+s , $in+ !$ Rs.5000=> ,n , +$,"%# s+n#+n+ !$

i*ris!n+n# $!r , *+ri! !$ #! !n#s.



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -11-

?. D+#+rinin #+ ,+:", !$ s+n#+n+ #! + ,,r+ in

, i/+n ,s+ is n!# ,n +,s #,s7 @"s# ,s +/!%/in , "ni$!r

s+n#+nin *!%i is , #!" ,%%. T,# is +,"s+ #+

:",n#" !$ s+n#+n+ #,# , + ,,r+ +*+ns "*!n ,

/,ri+# !$ $,#!rs in%"in i#i,#in ir"s#,n+s *+"%i,r

#! , i/+n ,s+. T+ C!"r#s +n+r,%% +n@! !nsi+r,%+

,!"n# !$ isr+#i!n in #+ ,##+r !$ +#+rinin #+

:",n#" !$ s+n#+n+. In !in s! #+ !"r#s ,r+ in$%"+n+

in /,rin +r++s #+ r+$!r,#i/+ +#+rr+n# ,n *"ni#i/+

,s*+#s !$ *"nis+n# +%, in #+ !n%"si!n !$ #+ #ri,%

,n %+,% *r!++ins #+ ,+ !$ #+ ,"s+ is

*si,%=+,%# !ni#i!n #+ n,#"r+ !$ #+ !$$+n+ #+

+,*!n "s+ ,n in #+ ,s+s !$ i%%+,% r,#i$i,#i!n #+

,!"n# !$ ri+ %!ss !$ @! ,n $,i% !%i,#i!ns !$ ,"s+

,r+ ,%s! s!+ !$ #+ !nsi+r,#i!ns #,# +i +,/i% i#

#+ C!"r#s i%+ +#+rinin #+ s+n#+n+ #! + ,,r+.

T+ C!"r#s ,/+ n!# ,##+*#+ #! +8,"s#i/+% +n"+r,#+

#+ !nsi+r,#i!ns #,# ! in#! +#+rin,#i!n !$ #+ :",n#"

!$ s+n#+n+ n!r ,/+ #+ C!"r#s ,##+*#+ #! %, !n #+



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -12-

+i# #,# +, !n+ !$ #+s+ !nsi+r,#i!ns ,rr. T,# is

+,"s+ ,n s" +8+ris+ is n+i#+r +,s n!r ,/is,%+ i/+n

#+ ri, si#",#i!ns in i #+ :"+s#i!n , $,%% $!r

+#+rin,#i!n. Br!,% s*+,7in #+ !"r#s ,/+ r+!nis+

#+ $,#!rs +n#i!n+ +,r%i+r ,s +in r+%+/,n# #! #+

:"+s#i!n !$ +#+rinin #+ s+n#+n+. D+isi!ns !$ #is C!"r#

!n #+ s"@+# ,r+ , %+i!n. R+$+r+n+ #! s!+ !n% s!"%

!+/+r s"$$i+.

4. In B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration (1974) 3

SCC 85 #+ ,"s+ ,s !n/i#+ "n+r S+#i!n 5(2& r+,

i# S+#i!n 5(1&(& !$ #+ Pr+/+n#i!n !$ C!rr"*#i!n A#

1<4 ,n "n+r S+#i!n 161 !$ I.P.C ,n ,s s+n#+n+ #!

"n+r! ri!r!"s i*ris!n+n# $!r , *+ri! !$ 1 +,r ,n 4

!n#s. On ,**+,% #is C!"r# i%+ r+"in #+ *"nis+n#

#! #+ *+ri! ,%r+, "n+r!n+ %,i !n #+ +n+r,%

*rini*%+s #,# ,r+ #! + !rn+ in in #+ C!"r#s i%+

+#+rinin #+ :",n#" !$ *"nis+n#. Tis C!"r#

!s+r/+

http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15962','1');




Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -13-

“10. As already observed, the appellant's conviction

under Section 161 , I.P.C. was rihtly upheld by the

!ih Court and there is no coent round "ade out #or our inter#erence with that conviction. $he

sentence o# i"prison"ent i"posed by the !ih Court #or both these o##ences is 1 year and this sentence is

to run concurrently. $he only %uestion which arises is

that under Section &1(d( read with Section &)( o# the Prevention o# Corruption Act the "ini"u"

sentence prescribed is riorous i"prison"ent #or oneyear and there "ust also be i"position o# #ine. $he

sentence o# i"prison"ent can be #or a lesser period

but in that event the Court has to assin special reasons which "ust be recorded in writin. In

considerin the special reasons the *udicial discretiono# the Court is as wide as the de"and o# the cause o#

substantial *ustice. +ow the %uestion o# sentence is

always a di##icult %uestion, re%uirin as it does, proper ad*ust"ent and balancin o# various

considerations which weih with a *udicial "ind indeter"inin its appropriate %uantu" in a iven case.

$he "ain purpose o# the sentence broadly stated isthat the accused "ust realise that he has co""itted

an act which is not only har"#ul to the society o#

which he #or"s an interal part but is also har"#ul tohis own #uture, both as an individual and as a

"e"ber o# the society. Punish"ent is desined to protect society by deterrin potential o##enders as

also by preventin the uilty party #ro" repeatin the

o##ence it is also desined to re#or" the o##ender and re-clai" hi" as a law abidin citien #or the ood o#

the society as a whole. /e#or"atory, deterrent and punitive aspects o# punish"ent thus play their due

part in *udicial thinin while deter"inin this

%uestion. In "odern civilied societies, however,

re#or"atory aspect is bein iven so"ewhat reater i"portance. $oo lenient as well as too harshsentences both lose their e##icaciousness. ne does

not deter and the other "ay #rustrate thereby "ain

the o##ender a hardened cri"inal. In the present case,a#ter weihin the considerations already noticed by

us and the #act that to send the appellant bac to *ail now a#ter 2 years o# the aony and harass"ent o#

these proceedins when he is also oin to lose his





Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -14-

*ob and to earn a livin #or hi"sel# and #or his #a"ily

"e"bers and #or those dependent on hi", we #eel

that it would "eet the ends o# *ustice i# we reduce thesentence o# i"prison"ent to that already underone

but increase the sentence o# #ine #ro" /s. )003- to/s. 4003-. Period o# i"prison"ent in case o# de#ault

will re"ain the sa"e.5

5. In Doloovinda !ohant" v. State o# $rissa (1979)

4 SCC 557% #is C!"r# "*!n !nsi+rin #+ n+%ii%+

,!"n# !$ Rs. 1?;=> ,%%++ #! ,/+ ++n r++i/+ #+

,"s+ ,s i%%+,% r,#i$i,#i!n #!!7 , %+ni+n# /i+

r+"in #+ s+n#+n+ !$ #+ ,"s+ $r! $!"r !n#s

ri!r!"s i*ris!n+n# #! #+ *+ri! ,%r+, "n+r!n+. T+

$!%%!in *,ss,+ is ,**!si#+

“.It, however, appears that the entire "oney whichwas said to have been e"beled by the appellant

was recovered by the overn"ent by deductin the

entire a"ount #ro" the salary o# the appellant. It alsoappears #ro" the state"ent o# the accused under

Section 74) that in view o# his do"estic circu"stances he was "entally disturbed. !avin

reard to these special circu"stances and #urther

havin reard to the #acts that the su" e"beled isonly /s. 1783- we #eel that it would not be proper to

send the appellant bac to *ail. $he appellant hasalready underone about a wee's i"prison"ent. 9or

these reasons, there#ore, we reduce the sentence tothe period already served and reduce the #ine #ro"

/s. 1,0003- to /s. &003- in de#ault one "onth's

riorous i"prison"ent. ut o# the #ine, i# deposited



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -15-

already, /s. &003- "ay be re#unded to the appellant.

:ith this "odi#ication the appeal is dis"issed.5

6. In %i# !$ #+ %!n +%, in #+ !n%"si!n !$ #+ %+,%

*r!++ins ,n #+ !ns+:"+n#i,% ,!n ,n in,r+r,#i!n

"n+r!n+ #+ ,**+%%,n# #is C!"r# in !.&. !ohi'ddin

v. State o# !aharashtra (1995) 3 SCC 57 r+"+ #+

s+n#+n+ !$ si8 !n#s i*!s+ !n #+ ,"s+ #+ #ri,%

!"r# #! #+ *+ri! ,%r+, "n+r!n+

“10. +ow co"in to the %uestion o# sentence, theo##ence too place in the year 1;81. All these years

the appellant has underone the aony o# cri"inal

proceedins until now and he has also lost his *ob and has a lare #a"ily to support. It is also stated that he

has beco"e sic and in#ir". !e has been in *ail #or so"e ti"e. 9or all these special reasons, while

con#ir"in the conviction o# the appellant, we reduce

the sentence o# i"prison"ent to the period already underone. !owever, we con#ir" the sentence o# #ine

with de#ault clause. Accordinly, sub*ect to the"odi#ication o# sentence o# i"prison"ent, the appeal

is dis"issed.5

. T! #+ s,+ +$$+# is #+ +isi!n !$ #is C!"r# in

Gh'lam Din B'h et. et. v. State o# *amm' and

+ashmir (199) 9 SCC ,39 +r+in ,$#+r !nsi+rin #+

%!n +%, in #+ %+,% *r!++ins #is C!"r# r+"+ #+



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -16-

*"nis+n# !$ #+ ,"s+ #! #! !n#s ri!r!"s

i*ris!n+n# $!r !$$+n+s *"nis,%+ "n+r #+ Pr+/+n#i!n !$

C!rr"*#i!n A# 1<4 ,n #+ R,nir P+n,% C!+. Tis C!"r#

s,i

“)8. Accordin to us, it would be too harsh to award

even the "ini"u" punish"ent at this lenth o# ti"eeepin in view the hardship already underone and

the a"ount which the State had ulti"ately to lose

because o# the conspiracy - the sa"e bein a su" o# /s. 1,6),112.8;. As about two decades have passed

since the co""ission o# the o##ence and as durin theinterrenu" the appellants had undoubtedly su##ered

in body and "ind, accordin to us, it is a #it case

where the proviso to Sub-section )( o# Section & o# the Act should be invoed which states that #or

special reasons recorded in writin, the court "ay re#rain #ro" i"posin a sentence o# i"prison"ent or

i"pose a sentence o# i"prison"ent o# less than one

year. $houh the proviso per"its not to i"pose asentence o# i"prison"ent at all and con#ine the

sentence to #ine only, we do not thin i# present is acase where the punish"ent to be awarded should be

only #ine, as any so#tness in this reard could produce

an undesirable result, na"ely, encourae"ent toadoption o# corrupt "eans by public servants which

has indeed to be checed, and not allow to beencouraed. <eepin in view all the attendin

circu"stances, we are o# the view that a sentence o#

/I #or two "onths would be ade%uate sentence, apart

#ro" the #ine o# /s. 1&,000. n #ailure to pay the #ine,each o# the appellants would su##er i"prison"ent #or two "onths.5

;. S! ,%s! in #+ ,s+ !$ State o# !aharashtra v.

-ashid Ba'hai !'lani (,//) 1 SCC 4/7 #+ ,"s+



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -17-

, ,%%++% !#,in+ i%%+,% r,#i$i,#i!n #! #+ #"n+ !$ Rs.

?00=> $!r i #+ #ri,% C!"r# , !n/i#+ #+ ,"s+

"n+r S+#i!n 161 !$ #+ I.P.C. ,n $!r ,n !$$+n+ *"nis,%+

"n+r S+#i!n 5(2& r+, i# S+#i!n 5(1&(& !$ #+

Pr+/+n#i!n !$ C!rr"*#i!n A# 1<4 ,n s+n#+n+ i #!

ri!r!"s i*ris!n+n# $!r , *+ri! !$ !n+ +,r. Tis C!"r#

r+"+ #+ s+n#+n+ #! $!"r !n#s ,$#+r !nsi+rin #+

ri+ ,!"n# ,n #+ %!n +%,. T+ $!%%!in !s+r/,#i!ns

,r+ in #is r+,r r+%+/,n#

“6. In reard to sentence, we #ind that the incident occurred about 1; years ao. $he "atter was pendin

#or about 7 years be#ore the Special =ude, and about

8 years be#ore the !ih Court and, therea#ter, #or 8years be#ore this Court. $he accused was hardly 7)

years old when the incident occurred and now "orethan &0 years old. $he accused was a $alathi co"in

#ro" a poor bacround with a #a"ily to support. In

the circu"stances, while restorin the conviction, wereduce the sentence #ro" one year to #our "onths

both under Section 161 IPC and Section &)( read with Section &1(d( o# the Act. >oth the sentences to

run concurrently. $he accused, who is on bail, shall

surrender #orthwith to serve out the sentence.5

<. S! ,%s! in #+ ,s+ !$ Behaarhai S. 0raa2ati v.

State o# G'arat (,//8) 11 SCC 13% #is C!"r# r+"+

#+ s+n#+n+ !$ !n+ +,r i*ris!n+n# i*!s+ !n #+







Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -18-

,"s+ $!r #+ !$$+n+s "n+r S+#i!n 161 !$ #+ Ini,n

P+n,% C!+ 1;60 ,n S+#i!n (2& !$ #+ Pr+/+n#i!n !$

C!rr"*#i!n A# 1<;;. T+ C!"r# in #+ $!%%!in !rs +%

#,# #+ +%, ,n #+ s+n#+n+ "n+r!n+ #+ ,"s+

+r+ i#i,#in $,#!rs in +#+rinin #+ :",n#" !$

s+n#+n+:

“8. $he alternative sub"ission relates to theharshness o# sentence. $he occurrence too place

nearly seven years bac. It is stated that the

appellant has su##ered custody #or "ore than si? "onths. $ain into account all these aspects, we #eel

interest o# *ustice would be best served i# thesentence is reduced to the period underone, while

"aintainin the conviction. It is to be noted that the

"ini"u" sentence prescribed under Section 2)( o# the Act is si? "onths.5

10. In #+ r++n# +isi!n !$ #is C!"r# in .+. erma v.

CB (,/14) 3 SCC 485 #+ ,"s+ ,s ,r+ "n+r

S+#i!n 161 !$ #+ Ini,n P+n,% C!+ 1;60 ,n S+#i!n 5(1&

(& r+, i# 5(2& !$ #+ Pr+/+n#i!n !$ C!rr"*#i!n A# 1<4

$!r +,n ,n ,+*#,n+ !$ , ri+ !$ Rs.265=> ,n ,s

s+n#+n+ #! "n+r! ri!r!"s i*ris!n+n# $!r , *+ri! !$

!n+ ,n , ,%$ +,rs $!r +, !$ #+ !$$+n+s. Tis C!"r#

i%+ +,rin is ,**+,% %ii#+ #+ :",n#" !$ *"nis+n#









Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -19-

#! #+ *+ri! ,%r+, "n+r!n+. T+ $!%%!in !rs ,r+

s+in,% #! #+ iss"+ ,# ,n

“10. In i"posin a punish"ent, the concern o# thecourt is with the nature o# the act viewed as a cri"e

or breach o# the law. $he "a?i"u" sentence or #ine provided in law is an indicator on the ravity o# the

act. !avin reard to the nature and "ode o#

co""ission o# an o##ence by a person and the"itiatin #actors, i# any, the court has to tae a

decision as to whether the chare established #allsshort o# the "a?i"u" ravity indicated in the

statute, and i# so, to what e?tent.

11. $he lon delay be#ore the courts in tain a #inal

decision with reard to the uilt or otherwise o# the

accused is one o# the "itiatin #actors #or thesuperior courts to tae into consideration while tain

a decision on the %uantu" o# sentence.

??? ??? ???

1&. $he Appellant is now aed 26. :e are in#or"ed

that he is otherwise not eepin in ood health,havin had also cardio vascular proble"s. $he o##ence

is o# the year 1;84. It is al"ost three decades now.$he accused has already underone physical

incarceration #or three "onths and "ental incarceration #or about thirty years. :hether at this

ae and stae, it would not be econo"ically waste#ul,and a liability to the State to eep the Appellant in

prison, is the %uestion we have to address. !avin

iven thouht#ul consideration to all the aspects o#

the "atter, we are o# the view that the #acts"entioned above would certainly be special reasons#or reducin the substantive sentence but enhancin

the #ine, while "aintainin the conviction.5

11. Sii%,r% in G'lmahmad Ad'lla Dall v. State o#

G'arat ,/14 (4) Crimes 455 (SC) #+ ,**+%%,n# ,s



Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -20-

s+n#+n+ #+ #ri,% !"r# #! "n+r! ri!r!"s

i*ris!n+n# $!r , *+ri! !$ !n+ +,r ,n , $in+ !$ Rs.

2500=> $!r #+ !$$+n+ *"nis,%+ "n+r S+#i!ns 161 ,n

165(A& !$ Ini,n P+n,% C!+ ,n "n+r S+#i!n 5(2& !$ #+

Pr+/+n#i!n !$ C!rr"*#i!n A# 1<4. 9i%+ +,rin ,n ,**+,%

!n #+ :",n#" !$ s+n#+n+ #is C!"r# r+"+ #+ s+n#+n+

!$ #+ ,"s+ #! #+ *+ri! ,%r+, "n+r!n+ !n #+

r!"n !$ *r!#r,#+ %+,% *r!++ins. T+ $!%%!in *,ss,+

is in #is r+,r ,**!si#+

“2. $he incident, in %uestion, too place as bac as on);3631;82. Al"ost )2 years have passed by. All these

years, the Appellants "ust have su##ered tre"endous

"ental trau"a and anuish. $he Appellants have lost their *obs and all retiral bene#its. $he Appellant -

=u*arsinh is, as o# today, about 26 years old. :e arein#or"ed by learned Counsel #or the Appellant -

@ul"ah"ad Abdulla all that @ul"ah"ad is su##erin

#ro" anrene and has underone surery. >oth the Appellants are in *ail. :e are in#or"ed by learned

Counsel #or the Appellants that the Appellants haveunderone about "ore than two "onths

i"prison"ent.

8. In the peculiar circu"stances o# the case,

there#ore, we are o# the opinion that the sentenceunderone by the" should be treated as substantive

sentence #or the o##ences #or which they are convicted

and #ine i"posed on the" needs to be enhanced5.






http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolving-a-uniform-sentencing-policy-is-a-tough-call-scpdf 21/21

Crl.A @ SLP (Crl.) NO. 444 OF 2014 -21-

12. 3i/+n #+ $,# #,# #+ #ri,% ,n ,**+,% *r!++ins

,/+ in #+ ,s+ ,# ,n !n#in"+ $!r n+,r% 1 +,rs

n! ,"sin i+ns+ #r,", +n#,% in,rn,#i!n ,n

,n"is #! #+ ,**+%%,n# ,n ,%s! i/+n #+ $,# #,# #+ ri+

,!"n# ,s @"s# ,!"# Rs.00=> ,n #,# #+ ,**+%%,n# ,s

,%r+, "n+r!n+ !n#s ,,ins# #+ s#,#"#!r

ini" !$ 6 !n#s i*ris!n+n# #+ r+"#i!n !$ #+

s+n#+n+ ,s *r!*!s+ +s#+++ Br!#+r ,**+,rs #! +

*+r$+#% in !r+r. I #+r+$!r+ !n"r i# #+ /i+ #,7+n

His L!rsi*.

))))))).))).)..)J. (T.S. Thakur)

N+ D+%iS+*#++r 2; 2015

Documents

Evolving a uniform sentencing policy is a tough call; SC.pdf