Rajesh Kumar vs State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi

Manmohan, J.—Present appeal has been filed u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 3rd December, 2009 and the order on

sentence dated 7th December, 2009 by virtue of which appellant has been convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and sentenced u/s

304B IPC to ten years rigorous imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment u/s 498A IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run

concurrently. Learned counsel for the appellant states, on instructions of the appellant, who is personally present in Court, that appellant does not

challenge the conviction order but only the sentencing order.

Mr. Vivek Sood, learned counsel for the appellant states that the sentencing order is harsh. He points out that the trial court did not take into

account that the appellant had not only taken the deceased to the hospital, but had even broken the lock of the room in which the deceased had

hung herself. He points out that after the police reached the scene, the appellant did not abscond.

With regard to the concept of punishment, the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babulal, has observed as under:-

The next question relates to adequacy of sentence. Let us consider it on principle as well as in practice, in the light of statutory provisions.

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 therefor.

The object of punishment has been succinctly stated in Halsbury''s Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol. 11, Para 482) thus:

Object of punishment.--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.

In justice-delivery system, sentencing is indeed a difficult and complex question. Every court must be conscious and mindful of proportion

between an offence committed and penalty imposed as also its impact on society in general and the victim of the crime in particular.

In B.G. Goswami Vs. Delhi Administration, this Court stated: (SCC p. 89, para 10)

Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations

which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the

accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to

his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as

also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law-abiding citizen for

the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking. while

determining this question. In modern civilised societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as

well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened

criminal.

(emphasis supplied)

Penal laws, by and large, adhere to the doctrine of proportionality in prescribing sentences according to culpability of criminal conduct. Judges

in principle agree that sentence ought always to commensurate with the crime. In practice, however, sentences are determined on other relevant

and germane considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional need that justifies lesser sentence. Sometimes the circumstances under which the

offence is committed play an important role. Sometimes it is title degree of deliberation shown by the offender in committing a crime which is

material. Sentencing is thus a delicate task which requires skill, talent and consideration of several factors, such as., the nature of offence,

circumstances? extenuating or aggravating? in which it was committed, prior criminal record of the offender, if any, age and background of the

criminal with reference to education, home life, social adjustment, emotional and mental condition, prospects of his reformation and rehabilitation,

etc. All these and similar other considerations can, hopefully and legitimately, tilt the scale on the propriety of sentence?

(emphasis supplied)

In the present case, the order on sentence itself shows that the appellant was only 29 years old on the date of incident and he has to look after

his old aged parents. A perusal of the nominal roll of the appellant also reveals that he has no criminal antecedents and his conduct in jail has been

satisfactory.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the conviction of appellant under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and sentence u/s 498A IPC are upheld.

However, appellant''s sentence u/s 304B IPC is reduced to eight years rigorous imprisonment. With the aforesaid observations, present appeal

stands disposed of.