Whether
the High Court is justified in reducing the sentence awarded to the accused
persons to the period already undergone?
The
Hon’ble Court observed:
“The cardinal principle of sentencing policy
is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has
committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This
Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing
of offenders in numerous cases.” [Para 7]
“We reiterate that in operating the
sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based
on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in 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 nature of weapons
used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter
into the area of consideration. We also reiterate 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. 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. The Court must not only keep in view the
rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while
considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.” [Para 13]
“The legislature has bestowed upon the
judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be
exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be
directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The
benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the judges in arriving at a
fair and impartial verdict”. [Para 6]
On
the facts of the case the Court held that:
(i) Reduction
of sentence merely on the ground of long pending trial is not justifiable.
[Para 21]
(ii)
The ground that it will further the enmity between the families of victim and
the accused, is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the sentence to be
awarded to the accused. The Courts cannot let the accused go scot-free on mere
suspicion of eruption of enmity between the families. [Para 22]
(iii)
The reduction of sentence passed by the High Court without appreciating the
nature of offence, grievous injuries of witnesses/victims, is unsustainable. [Para
23]