Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and M.S. Karnik, JJ., partly allowed an appeal by reducing the sentence of the accused in light of the sentencing policy.
In the present matter, the lower Court’s decision was challenged.
Victim used to reside with her brothers at her maternal uncle’s house and worked as a babysitter. Appellant-Accused and the victim were residing in the same area and eventually from acquaintance they turned into lovers.
Victim’s uncle objected the affair, after which the victim stopped meeting the appellant-accused. Later, she expressed her clear refusal to continue the relationship.
On victim’s refusal, appellant-accused kept threatening her and on one occasion he had beaten her up too as he wanted her to marry him.
Day of the incident
Appellant- accused suddenly entered the rickshaw in which the victim was seated. The victim was pulled out of the rickshaw. The appellant-accused threatened the rickshaw driver and forced him to leave. The appellant-accused assaulted the victim with his fists and pulled her to the footpath.
On her refusal, the appellant-accused took out a knife from the right side pocket of his pant and inflicted injuries on her neck.
At that time, one police vehicle arrived. The appellant-accused ran away from the spot. The victim was taken to the hospital and on the basis of her statement, the offences under Section 307 and 341 of the IPC came to be registered.
Appellant-accused’s counsel submitted that the cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on the offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
APP on behalf of the respondent-State submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be said to be unjustified. In support of his submission that the appellant-accused deserves no leniency, he relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of M.P. v. Kashiram, (2009) 4 SCC 26.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, bench stated that it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, in the context of duty of the Court to award proper sentence, wherein the following was stated:
“16. ………… undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.”
In the present case, Court opined that the sentence imposed by the trial court required to be reduced.
The aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court.
Court stated that in view of the dicta of the Supreme Court, “we are conscious of the social impact of the crime against women cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment.”
Hence, considering the totality of circumstances, the imposition of sentence of imprisonment for life by the trial court appears to be harsh and hence the same needs to be reduced by maintaining the conviction.
Therefore, sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. [Arumugum Arundatiyar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 844, decided on 05-08-2020]