Inadequate Sentence Cannot Be Imposed Merely Because Long Period Has Lapsed By The Time Criminal Appeal Is Decided: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate.

The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that it has come across a number of judgments of different High Courts in which the criminal appeals are disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated methods.

We deprecate such practice of disposing of criminal appeals by adopting shortcuts, the court said.

In this case, Rajasthan High court partly allowed a criminal appeal by maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, but by reducing the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him in confinement (44 days). To reduce the sentence the High Court considered the submissions on behalf of the accused Banwari Lal that the occurrence took place about 26 years ago and that the accused were facing trial since last 26 years and that when the occurrence took place in the year 1989, the accused were young and now they are aged persons. The State assailed this judgment before the Apex Court.

The bench observed that the High Court has dealt with the appeal in a most casual and cavalier manner. The judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the sentence is nothing but an instance of travesty of justice and against all the principles of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions on imposing appropriate punishment/suitable punishment, the court said.

The court noted that, in the present case, the accused could have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and/or at least up to ten years.

Answering the contention that there is no minimum sentence under Section 307 IPC, the bench observed that discretion has to be exercised judiciously and the sentence has to be imposed proportionately and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence committed and by considering the principles for imposing sentence. While allowing the appeal, the bench observed:

"Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate. The High Court has not at all adverted to the relevant factors which were required to be while imposing appropriate/suitable punishment/sentence. As observed hereinabove, the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the appeal in a most cavalier manner. The High Court has disposed of the appeal by adopting shortcuts. The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the appeal is highly deprecated. We have come across a number of judgments of different High Courts and it is found that in many cases the criminal appeals are disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated methods. In some cases, the convictions under Section 302 IPC are converted to Section 304 Part I or Section 304 Part II IPC without assigning any adequate reasons and solely recording submissions on behalf of the accused that their conviction may be altered to Section 304 Part I or 304 Part II IPC. ..

In cases, like the present one, the accused did not press any challenge to the conviction and prayed for reduction in sentence and the same is considered and an inadequate and inappropriate sentence has been imposed without assigning any further reasons and without adverting to the relevant factors which are required to be considered while imposing appropriate punishment/sentence. We deprecate such practice of 15 disposing of criminal appeals by adopting shortcuts. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the sentence to the period already undergone (44 days) from three years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Court in respect of accused Banwari Lal is absolutely unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside."

Case details

State of Rajasthan vs Banwari Lal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357 | SLP(Crl) Diary no. 21596/2020 | 8 April 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna 

Headnotes

Summary : Appeal against Rajasthan High court judgment which partly allowed a criminal appeal by maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, but by reducing the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him in confinement (44 days) - Allowed - Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate- trial Court had already taken a very lenient view while imposing the sentence of only three years' rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same. 

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 307 - There is no minimum sentence under Section 307 IPC - Discretion has to be exercised judiciously and the sentence has to be imposed proportionately and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence committed and by considering the principles for imposing sentence. (Para 9)

Practice and Procedure - Criminal appeals - Criminal appeals are being disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated methods - Practice of disposing of criminal appeals by adopting shortcuts deprecated. (Para 10)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment