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.HeadnoteCriminal Jurisprudence — Sentencing — Principle of Proportionality — Mitigating Circumstances — Reduction of Sentence to Period Already Undergone — Appeal confined strictly to the quantum of sentence - The appellant was convicted under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for using a forged revenue document (Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika) to furnish surety/bail in judicial proceedings, and was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment on each count – Held that while offences involving forgery and the production of fabricated documents before a Court of law strike at the purity of the administration of justice and cannot be treated lightly, the sentencing process must remain central to the principle of proportionality - It cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise divorced from the factual matrix of the case and the overall circumstances of the offender - The Supreme Court observed that the occurrence pertained to the year 2014, and the appellant had endured the rigors of criminal proceedings for more than a decade - there were no subsequent criminal antecedents, the appellant was not a habitual offender, and the forgery was detected at the threshold stage during bail scrutiny, avoiding irreversible pecuniary or proprietary losses - Noting that the appellant had already undergone over two years of actual incarceration, the Supreme Court found it fit to modify the substantive sentence to the period already undergone while keeping the fine unaltered. [Relied on Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 3 SCC 35; Paras 13-26]Cause Title: ISRAFIL @ PAPPU @ NAIMUDDIN KHAN VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA...

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

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

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

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers