Imposing inadequate sentence due to sympathy will undermine public confidence in legal system: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the quantum of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime 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 committed [State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur]..A division bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar said that imposing inadequate sentence due to undue sympathy would do more harm to the justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. "We again reiterate in this case 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 said. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime, the bench ruled. "The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong," the Court observed..The Court was hearing an appeal against a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had though upheld the conviction of respondent for the offence under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The High Court had, however, reduced the sentence from two years to eight months, subject to a prior deposit of ₹25,000 towards compensation to be paid to family/legal heirs of the deceased..The respondent-accused was driving a Scorpio Car in a rash and negligent manner, due to which one person died while overtaking an ambulance from the left. The ambulance turned turtle due to the collision and two persons sitting in the ambulance also suffered injuriesThe trial court convicted the respondent-accused under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and the same was confirmed by the sessions court. However, in revision, the High Court reduced the sentence.Aggrieved, the State approached the Supreme Court by way of appeal..The Supreme Court noted that while reducing the sentence, the High Court had not considered the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the accused committed the offence"Cogent reasons were given by the trial court while sentencing the accused to undergo two years RI for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the case on behalf of the accused that he is coming from a poor family, is considered as mitigating circumstance," the apex court said. .The Court then highlighted the nature of the IPC, which is punitive and deterrent in nature, with the objective to punish offenders for offences committed. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on its 2019 decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ramchandra Rabidas wherein emphasis was laid on the need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents.The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence, the Court underlined..The Court said that while the principle of sentencing recognises the corrective measures, there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on its 2017 decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh, wherein the Court had disapproved High Court's approach in reducing the sentence of the accused while maintaining the conviction under Section 304A IPC.In view of the above, the Court restored the sentence imposed by the trial court..Advocate Kanika Ahuja appeared for the appellant.Advocate Aftab Ali Khan appeared for the respondent..[Read Judgment]