Ramashraya Chakravarti Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh [1975] INSC 277 (13 November 1975)
GOSWAMI, P.K.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
UNTWALIA, N.L.
CITATION: 1976 AIR 392 1976 SCR (2) 703 1976
SCC (1) 281
ACT:
Sentence-Factors to be considered in
determining sentence-I.P.C. Section 409 and 467.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was a Circle organizer in the
Tribal Welfare Department. He was entrusted with the distribution of stipends
to adivasi students of the Tribal Welfare Department School. He misappropriated
a sum of Rs. 500/-.
meant for 4 students and also forged certain
entries in the bills. He was convicted under section 409 and section 467 of
I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge and ` sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The High Court on appeal maintained the conviction but
reduced the sentence to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-.
on an appeal by Special leave limited only to
the question of sentence.
HELD: 1. To adjust the duration of
imprisonment to the gravity of a particular offence is not always an easy task.
It is always a matter of judicial discretion
subject to any mandatory minimum prescribed by law. In judging the adequacy of
a sentence, the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its commission, the
age and character of the offender, injury to individuals or to Society, effect
of the punishment on the offender, eye to correction or reformation of the
offender, are some amongst many other factors which would be ordinarily taken
into consideration by courts.
[713GH, 714-FG]
2. Trial Courts in this country already
over-burdened with work have hardly any time to set apart for sentencing
reflection. In a good system of administration of criminal justice pre-sentence
investigation may be of great sociological value. Throughout the world
humanitarianism is permeating into penology and the courts are expected to
discharge their appropriate roles. [714 GH]
3. Without minimising the seriousness of the
offence, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the sentence was
reduced from 2 years to one year [715-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No.
154 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
order dated the 18th February 1975 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur
in Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 1972.
Sarju Prasad and S. N. Prasad for the
Appellant.
Ram Panjwani, Dy. Advocate General, M.P., H.
S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI, J.-To adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity of a
particular offence is not always an easy task. Sentencing involves an element
of guessing but often settles down to practice obtaining in a particular court
with inevitable differences arising in the context of the times and events in
the light of social imperatives. It is always a 714 matter of judicial
discretion subject to any mandatory minimum prescribed by law.
Hegel in his 'Philosophy of Right' pithily
put the difficulty as follows:- "Reason cannot determine, nor can the concept
provide any principle whose application could decide whether justice requires
for an offence (i) a corporal punishment of forty lashes or thirty-nine, or
(ii) a fine of five dollars or four dollars ninety-three, four, etc., cents, or
(iii) imprisonment of a year or three hundred and sixty-four, three, etc.,
days, or a year and one, two, or three days. And yet injustice is done at once
if there is one lash too many, or one dollar or one cent, one week in prison or
one day, too many or too few".
The present appeal by special leave being
limited to sentence we are to consider about the appropriate deserts for the
appellant in this case.
The appellant was a Circle organizer in the
Tribal Welfare Department at Lohandiguda in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was
entrusted with the distribution of stipends to Adivasi students of the Tribal
Welfare Department School.
He misappropriated a sum of Rs. 500/- meant
for four students and also forged certain entries in the bills. He was
convicted under section 409 and section 467 IPC by the Sessions Judge and
sentenced for each head of charge to con current four years' rigorous
imprisonment and also to a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to rigorous
imprisonment for six months. The High Court on appeal maintained the conviction
but reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment maintaining the
fine.
From a perusal of the judgment of the High
Court which is the only document in the paper book in addition to the special
leave petition, it is not very clear about the offence of forgery committee by
the accused. We would, however, say nothing more than that.
In judging the adequacy of a sentence the
nature of the offence, the. circumstances of its commission, the age and
character of the offender, injury to individuals or to society, effect of the
punishment on the offender, eye to correction and reformation of the offender,
are some amongst many other factors which would be ordinarily taken into
consideration by courts. Trial courts in this country already over-burdened
with work have hardly any time to set apart for sentencing reflection. This
aspect is missed or deliberately ignored by accused lest a possible plea for
reduction of sentence may be considered as weakening his defence. In a good
system of administration of criminal justice pre-sentence investigation may be
of great sociological value. Throughout the world humanitarianism is permeating
into penology and the courts are expected to discharge their appropriate roles.
715 The appellant is a young man of about 30
years. He is an educated person who was employed in Government service. But for
the forgery he could have been tried in the court of a first class Magistrate
for the offence under section 409 IPC and in that case the maximum sentence of
imprisonment would have been two years' rigorous imprisonment on the face of
the High Court's judgment, as noticed above, the part played by the appellant
in the forgery is rather a little obscure.
The appellant is sure to lose his employment
under the Government. There is already indignity heaped upon him on account of
conviction. He has the opportunity to commit such offence as a Government
servant in the future. Any sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him will be a
deterrent to others similarly disposed in such unlawful pursuits. The appellant
was refused bail in this Court and he is said to have served about nine months
in prison.
While we do not minimise the seriousness of
the offences, having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, we are of
opinion that it will meet the ends of justice in this case if we order, which
we do, that the appellant's sentence be reduced to one year's rigorous
imprisonment only and in addition to a fine of Rs. 500 only, in default
rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal is partly allowed with
modification of the sentence as ordered.
P.H.P. Appeal partly allowed.
Back
