Holding

The High Court's order reducing the sentence is unsustainable and is set aside; the trial court's original sentence is restored.

Summary

The accused, Pappu@Ajay, was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 376(1) read with 511, 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines. The High Court, noting that the accused had already served about five months and 25 days, reduced the sentence to that period already undergone for the first offence, without providing any reasons. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed, arguing that the reduction was unjustified given the gravity of the crimes. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reduction was unsustainable as it was unreasoned and contrary to the principles of proper sentencing, which require consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors and the social impact of the crime. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court order, restored the trial court’s sentence, and directed the respondent to surrender to custody. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence to the period already served without providing reasons.
Whether the reduction of sentence complied with the principles of sentencing under the IPC for offences under Sections 376(1) r/w 511, 324 and 452.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 324, s. 376(1), s. 452, s. 511

Subjects

sentencingrapeIPCproportionalityreduction of sentenceappellate jurisdictionsocial impactdeterrence

Judgment

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 793

-"y
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A
v.
PAPPU@ AJAY
(Criminal Appeal No.1213 of 2008).
AUGUST 4, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860; S. 376(1) r/w s.511 and Ss. 324 and
452: c
Sentencing - Trial Court convicting accused for c0.mmit-
ting offences punishable u/s. 376(1) rlw s. 511 and Ss. 324
and 452 /PC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for
4 years - High Court reducing the sentence to the period al-
ready undergone viz. 5 months and 25 days - Correctness of D
- Held: Incorrect- No reason indicated by the High Court while
.... ..,._ directing reduction of sentence - It is duty of the Court to award
proper sentence having regard to nature of the offence and
the manner in which it was committed - For deciding just and
appropriate sentence, the aggravating and mitigating circum- E
stances in which crime was· committed, to be delicately bal-
anced in a dispassionate manner by the Court - Social im-
pact of crime must not be lost sight of and per se require ex-
emplary treatment - In the light of legal position on sentenc~
ing, the High Court's order clearly not sustainable and set aside F
- Judgment of the trial court restored.
• j
Sentencing - Object and quantum of - Discussed. .
Accused-respondent was convicted by the trlal court
for committing the offences punishable under Sections
G
376(1) read with Section 511 IPC and Sections 324 and
452 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous impris-
onment for four years. In an appeal preferred by the ac-
' -~ cused against the order of the trial court, High Court held
·793
H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.

·A that since the re'spondent had undergone imprisonment
for about five months and 25 days, the sentence should
be reduced to the period already undergone in respect of
the first offence. Hence the present appeal.
Appellant-State contended that considering the grav-
B ity of the offence involved; the High Court ought not to
have reduced the sentence to, the period undergone, f .,,,
which was less than six ·months.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
C HELD: 1.1 No reason has been indicated by the High
Court to direct reduction of sentence. (Para -- 8) [797-F]
1.2. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates con-
.flicting claims and· demands. Security of persons and
property of the people is an essential function of the State.
0
It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal
-·law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where
.living law must find answer to the ·new challenges and
the courts are required to mould the sentencing system
to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness
-E would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protec-
tion of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must
be the objectof law which must be achieved by imposing
appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone
of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges con-
F fronting the society. (Para - 9) [797 G-H, 798-A]
· "Law in Changing. Society" by Friedman - referred to.
1.3 Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would. do .more harm to the justice system to undermine
· G the publi.c confidence in the efficacy of law and society
CQ.µld; npt_ long endure under such serious threats. It is,
th,ere.for~ •. the duty of every court to. award proper sen-
. tence t)aving regard to the nature 9f ~he offence and the
manner in which it was executed or committed etc. (Para
H - 10) [798-D-E]
,
«
I

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PAPPU 795
@AJAY
-·,,-
Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR (1991) A
SC 1463 - relied on.
1.4 Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought
~ always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are de-
-.'
' termined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is
J the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered 8
~~ ~
to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keep-
~

~
ing him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic
results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause
a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment
and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious c
and widespread. (Para - 11) [798 G-H, 799 A]
1.5 After giving due consideration to the facts and
circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appro-
priate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggra-
D
vating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which
a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced
' ... '1·
on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispas-
sionate manner by the Court. (Para - 12) [799 B-C]
Dennis Councle MCGOautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 E
US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 - referred to.
1.6 Imposition of sentence without considering its
effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality
~
a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, which have
great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot F
~ 1 be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment.
Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or tak-
ing too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of
time in respect of such offences will be result-wise
counter productive in the long run and against societal G
interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened
by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
-..,, (Para - 13) [799 F-Hl
1.7 The punishment to be awarded for a crime must
H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consis-
tent with the atrocity and brutality with w,hich the crime
has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warrant-
ing public abhorrence and it should respond to the
society's cry·for justice against the criminal. (Para - 14).
B [800.A-B]
. .. State. of.MP v. Ghanshyarn Singh (2003) 8 SCC 13 and
State of M.P v. Babbu Barkare alias Da/ap Singh (2005) 5
sec 413 :-- relied on. '
_C · 2. ·Considering the legal position, the High Court's
order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. ·(Para ..:.. 16)
[800-0]
·· ' Case Law Reference
· AIR (1991) .sc 1463 Relied 'on Para - 10
D ..
.402 US.183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 Referred to Para - 12
.-~ (2003) a sec 13 Relied on Para - 15
(2005) 5 ·sec 413 Relied on Para - 15
E CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISD.ICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1213 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.1.2004 of
the·High ;Court o(Madhya Pradesh at'Jabalpufhi Criminal Ap-
peal No.· 1·482· of 2002 ·· ,. , · ··
F
. .Govind Goel,. C,D. Singh and Sunny Chaudhary for the
Appellant.
Nirrnal Chopra for the Respondent. . ·
.~ " .. , " ' . •', '

, .. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
Or. AFHJIT PASA'fAT, J. 1. Leave granted'.
I > ' f' ~
·,

. · .2. Since the only question involved.in this appeal is whether
learned Single Judge was justified in reducing the sentence, as >("
imposed by the High Court on the respondent, detailed. refer-
H erke to the factual aspects .is unnecessary.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PAPPU 797
@AJAY [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-·y
3. The respondent faced trial for offences punishable un- A
der Sections 376(1) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') and Sections 324 and 452 IPC.
For the first offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with de-
fault stipulations. For the second offence, he was sentenced to B
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of
· Rs.500/- with default stipulations. Similarly, for the last offence,
he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
4. He preferred an appeal before the High Court and the c
High Court, by the impugned order, held that since the respon-
dent had undergone imprisonment for about five months and
25 days, the sentence should be reduced to the period already
undergone in respect of the first offence.
D
5. The State of Madhya Pradesh has questioned correct·
ness of the judgment on the ground that considering the gravity
J'\ )<.
of the offence involved, the High Court ought not to have re-
duced the sentence to the period undergone which, as noted
above, was less than six months.
E
6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judg-
ment of the High Court.
7. In the instant case the victim was examined as PW-3.
It is to be noted that three persons faced trial and the co-ac-
cused persons were acquitted of the charges. F
> ').
8. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appel-
lant - State, no reason has been indicated by the High Court to
direct reduction of sentence.
9. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting G
claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the
people is an essential function of the State. It could be a.chieved
-~ through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a
cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the
new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sen- H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
v---
A tencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of law- ~

lessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Pro- ~

tection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be.
the object of law whic_h must be achieved by imposing appro- l
priate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice.
B' of "ord~r" should meet the challenge_s confronting the society.
Friedman in his "Law in Changing. Society" stated that, "State i
"
of criminal law continues to be as it should be a decisive reflec-
tion o.f social consciousness of so.ciety". Therefore, in operat-
ing the sentencing system, law·should adopt the corrective f==

c machinery or the deterrence ·b?sed on factual matrix. By deft
I-
modulation sE:11tencing process be stern where it should be, and
~•
tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and
given circumstances· ih 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 na-
D
ture of weapons used and all. other attending circumstances are
relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. >( ..

10. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sen-
tence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine
E the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could
not long endure under such serious threat~. It is, therefore, the
duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to
the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was ex-
ecuted or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated
F by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu
(AIR 1991 SC 14_63). -¥ ...

11. The criminal law adher~s in general to the principle of
proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpabil-
ity of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some
G significant discretion to the Judge in arrivin'g at a sentence in I
~
each case, presumably to perrnft sentences that reflect more
subtle consider~tions of culpability th~t are raised by the spe-
'='f-
cial facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punish- ·>
ment ought always to fit the crime;_ yet in practice sentences are
H determined largely by otrer considerations. Sometimes it is the
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PAPPU 799
@AJAY [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a A
sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of cir-
culation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime.
Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just
desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of appar-
ent injustice that are serious and widespread. B
12. After giving due consideration to the facts and circum- .
stances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sen-
tence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and miti-
gating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been
committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really C
relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court.
Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very
aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of
Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L. D. 2d 711 that no formula of a fool-
proof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable crite- D
rion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infi-
nite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the
crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide
any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various cir-
cumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, . !=
the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only
way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished.
13. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect
on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exer-
cise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to F
; j offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropria-
tion of public money, treason and other offences involving moral
turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on so-
cial order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se
require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing G
meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on
account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be re-
sult-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal
interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string
of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.

v-\
A 14. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate pun- \

ishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed
not only against the individual victim but also against the soci-
ety to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to
be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should con-
B form to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which
the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime war-
ranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's
cry for justice against the criminal". If for extremely heinous crime
of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provo-
C cation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of de-
terrent punishment will lose its relevance.
15. These aspects have been elaborated in State of M.P
v. Ghanshyam Singh (2003(8) SCC 13), and State of M.P v.
Babbu Barkare alias Dalap Singh (2005.(5) SCC 413).
D
16. Considering the legal position as indicated above the
High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is accordingly
set aside. The judgment of the Trial Court is restored. The re-
spondent shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the re-
mainder of sentence.
E
17. The appeal is allowed.
S.K.S. Appeal allowed.