In Navjot Singh Sidhu case, the Supreme Court has enhanced the sentence on the ground of necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment.
The Division Bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that obviously undue harshness is not required in awarding punishment, inadequate punishment may lead to sufferance of the community at large.
The High Court had convicted Sidhu under Section 304 Part II of the IPC based on the testimony of the doctors. As per their testimony, the cause of death was cardiac failure and all that they had stated was that the cardiac condition of the deceased was very weak.
The Court noted that it recognizes that there were lapses in investigation but then people are not convicted on the basis of doubts. It considered the legal question of as to whether in the given factual scenario, grave error can be said to have been committed on the issue of sentence by not punishing with imprisonment of any term whatsoever?
Senior Counsel for the complainant urged that the sentence imposed under Section 323 of the IPC was not in line with the principles of sentencing principles and that the observations on sentencing in Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2013 Latest Caselaw 727 SC wherein it was held that the aggravating and mitigating factors both were required to be considered before deciding the question of sentence, more so when the judgment of the High Court is sought to be upset, on the provisions under which it is based. The sentence imposed, it was urged, should be proportionate to the offence and should take into account the deterrence aspect. There cannot be leniency in sentencing when the hurt/injury has resulted in death, nor can the delay in trial be taken into account which was not attributable to the complainants.
In this view, he submitted that Sidhu at the relevant time was a young man of 25 years, who was playing international cricket and was athletically physically fit. He is expected to know the effect of any blow to be inflicted by him, more so, when on the opposite side the man is aged about 65 years (more than his father’s age and elder to him by 40 years). Thus, it was urged that simply because it was a spontaneous incident where no weapon was used, the same cannot be a ground to inflict minimal and innocuous punishment of fine of Rs.1,000/-.
On the other hand, Counsel for Sidhu urged that a review petition on the quantum of sentence was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on PARVINDER KANSAL vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, 2020 Latest Caselaw 478 SC, Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2018 Latest Caselaw 758 SC
He submitted that the victim’s right to appeal ought to be restricted to only three eventualities, i.e., acquittal of the accused, conviction for lesser offence, or for imposing inadequate compensation, but there was no provision of appeal for the victim to question the quantum of sentence as inadequate. Such a right was available under Section 377 Cr.P.C. for the State.
He also placed reliance on Manohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, 2015 Latest Caselaw 44 SC
The Court after elabortaing on facts, stressed on the necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment.
"While a disproportionately severe sentence ought not to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe the law courts to award a sentence which would be manifestly inadequate, having due regard to the nature of the offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on the society at large. Punishments are awarded not because of the fact that it has to be an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather having its due impact on the society; while undue harshness is not required but inadequate punishment may lead to sufferance of the community at large."
An important aspect to be kept in mind is that any undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law.
"The society can not long endure under serious threats and 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. It has, thus, been observed that the punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated."
The Court referred to Krishna @ Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2014 Latest Caselaw 705 SC wherein it was held that “.....Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence.”
The sentencing philosophy for an offence has a social goal that the sentence has to be 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.13 While opportunity to reform has to be kept in mind, the principle of proportionality also has to be equally kept in mind, the Court noted.
It opined that Criminal Jurisprudence with the passage of time has laid emphasis on victimology, which fundamentally is a perception of a trial from the viewpoint of the criminal as well as the victim. Both are viewed in the social context and, thus, victim’s rights have to be equally protected and referred to Gopal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 Latest Caselaw 119 SC wherein it was observed that that just punishment is the collective cry of the society and while collective cry has to be kept uppermost in mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside.
Thus, the principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. No doubt there cannot be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. An offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court, the Court stated referring to Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 Latest Caselaw 27 SC wherein it was held that the twin objective of the sentencing policy to be kept in mind was emphasised as deterrence and correction and, thus, principle of proportionality in sentencing a convict were held to be well entrenched in the criminal jurisprudence.
The Court also took into account Jagjeet Singh Vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 Latest Caselaw 315 SC, State of Rajasthan Vs. Banwari Lal, 2022 Latest Caselaw 299 SC, Soman Vs. State of Kerala, 2012 Latest Caselaw 753 SC
Case Title: JASWINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE Versus NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU & ORS
Case Details: Review Petition (Crl.) No.477 of 2018
Coram: Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
