Sentence/Sentencing – Principle of – High Court though confirmed the conviction of the respondent-accused for offences u/ss.279 and 304A, IPC, however, reduced the sentence from two years to eight months – Justification of – Held: While reducing the sentence, the High Court has not at all considered the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the accused committed the offence – Because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused one innocent person died and two persons sustained injuries – High Court did not consider the fact that IPC is punitive and deterrent in nature – Principal aim and object are to punish offenders for offences committed under IPC and the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment has to be borne in mind – Further, the principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence – Though, the principle of sentencing recognises the corrective measures but there are occasions when deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case – Impugned judgment showing undue sympathy to the accused is unsustainable, set aside – Sentence imposed by Trial Court confirmed by the Session Court, restored – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.279, 304A.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh (2015) 1 SCC 222 : [2014] 13 SCR 554; State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5 SCC 182 : [2015] 3 SCR 590; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ramchandra Rabidas (2019) 10 SCC 75 : [2019] 15 SCR 771 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.