Long Lapse Of Time Without Similar Criminal Conduct Relevant While Moulding Sentence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 23) reduced the sentence of a convict, who had been awarded five years' rigorous imprisonment for each of four offences, noting that there was no material on record to indicate his involvement in any similar criminal activity during the long intervening period.

“The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria, while modifying the sentence of the Appellant to the period of the sentence already undergone.

The prosecution's case pertains to the use of a forged revenue document by the Appellant for furnishing surety in judicial proceedings, which resulted in his conviction by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, which deal with offences which undermine the authenticity and sanctity attached to public and legal documents. The Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years on each count along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under each head, with the substantive sentences directed to run concurrently.

The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, prompting the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court, where the issue survived regarding the quantum of the sentence imposed on the Appellant.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant prayed for the modification of the sentence, urging that he is not alleged to be a habitual offender and that no subsequent criminal antecedents have been brought to the notice of the Court against him, therefore his sentence requires reconsideration in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Finding force in the Appellant's submission, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra was inclined to grant a relief to the Appellant, upon noting that “no material has been placed before this Court indicating that the appellant is a habitual offender or that he was involved in similar criminal activity either prior or subsequent to the present occurrence.”, given that the appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.

Reference was drawn from the case of Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 3 SCC 35, where in a similar set of facts, the Court, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

“…while considering the question of sentence, the Court is required to balance the nature of the offence with the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, the role attributed to the accused, the period of incarceration undergone, the passage of time and other mitigating circumstances relevant to sentencing jurisprudence. The principle of proportionality remains central to the sentencing process. Sentencing cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise divorced from the factual matrix of the case and the overall circumstances of the offender.”, the court explained.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, resulting in the modification of the sentence to the sentence already undergone.

Cause Title: ISRAFIL @ PAPPU @ NAIMUDDIN KHAN VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR Ms. Shweta Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akarsh Khare, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Amit Sharma, AAG Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Adv.