BIKRAM DORJEEversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

                       [2009) 6 S.C.R. 884


A                       BIKRAM DORJEE
                                v.
                    STATE OF WEST BENGAL
                (Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2009)
                         APRIL 24, 2009
8
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANGULY, JJ.]

        Sentence/Sentencing:
c
         Life sentence for conviction uls 304 (Part I) /PC -
    Propriety of - Held : Life sentence in appropriate case can
    be imposed in a case re/atable to s. 304 (Part I) /PC -
    However, on facts, 1O years custodial sentence would meet
o   the ends of justice - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part/).

        Imposition of sentence - Determinative factors for -
    Proportionality in imposition of - Discussed.

E       The question involved for consideration in the
    present appeal was whether sentence of life
    imprisonment could be awarded to the accused
    convicted u/s 304 (Part I) IPC.

        Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
F
        HELD: 1. Though life sentence in appropriate cases
    can be imposed in a case relatable to Section 304 (Part I)
    IPC, on the peculiar facts of the case 10 years custodial
    sentence would meet the ends of justice. [Para 12) [890-
G BJ

        2.1. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
    would do more harm to the justice system to undermine
    the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society
H                              884
        BIKRAM DORJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL              885

•
      could not long endure under such serious threats. It is,    A
      therefore, 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 etc.
      [Para 6) [890-A-C]
                                                                  B
          2.2. After giving due consideration to the facts and
      circumstances of each case, for deciding just and
...   appropriate sentence to be awarded for an. offence, the
      aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in
      which a crime has been committed are to be delicately       c
      balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in
      a dispassionate manner by the Court. [Para 8) (888-F-G]

           2.3. In the absence of any foolproof formula which
      may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly
                                                                 0
      assess various circumstances germane to the
      consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary
      judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in
      which such judgment may be equitably distinguished.
      [Para 8] [888-H; 889-A-B]
                                                                 E
           2.4. The object should be to protect the society and
      to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of
      law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that
      the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as
      to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience F
      of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern
      where it should be. [Para 9) (889-C]

            2.5. Imposition of sentence without considering its
      effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality G
      a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where
      it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping,
      misappropriation of public money, treason and other
      offences involvingAfuoral turpitude or moral delinquency
      which have great impact on social order, and public H
    886        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2009] 6 S.C.R.


A interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require
  exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing
  meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely
  on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences
  will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and
B against societal interest which needs to be cared for and
  strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the
  sentencing system. [Para 10) [889-D-F]

          2.6. Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate
c punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been
  committed not only against the individual victim but also
  against the society to which the criminal and victim
  belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must
  not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be
0 consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the
  crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime
  warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to
  the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Para 11]
  [889-G-H; 890-A]
E       Sevaka Peruma/ Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991
    SC 1463 and State of M.P. v. Ghanashyam Singh, 2003 (8)
    sec 13, relied on.
      Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of Callifomia, 402 US
                                                                   ..
F 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711, referred to

                        Case Law Reference:

        AIR 1991 SC 1463           Relied on           Para 6
G
        2003 (8) sec 13            Referred to         Para 7

       402 US 183: 28 l.D. 2d 711 Referred to          Para 8

       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
H
                    BIKRAM DORJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                   887


                 No. 827 of 2009.                                                  A

... '                From the Judgment & Order dated 11.04.2008 of the High
                 Court of Calcutta in CRLA No. 459 of 2004.

                      Sree Narain Jha (A.C.) for the Appellants.                   B
                      Tara Chandra and Neelam Sharma for the Respondents.

                      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                      DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.                     c
                      2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
                 Bench of the Calcutta High ·Court holding the appellant guilty
                 of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian
                 Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). He was sentenced to D
                 undergo imprisonment for life by learned Additional Sessions
                 Judge, Fast Track Court, Alipurduar. Sentence was confirmed
                 in the appeal.

                      3. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:              E
                       On 14.6.2002 at about 4.30 p.m. Santosh Dorjee along
                 with his cousin brother Sankar Dorjee went to an eatery situated
                 in front of Bhawani Video Hall of Birpara for taking food. They
        •
                 placed order and were waiting there. All of a sudden one
                 Bikram Dorjee came there and assaulted Santosh Dorjee by F
                 a knife in his belly. Seeing the same assault Sankar panicked
                 and rushed away from the place of occurrence thinking that
                 Bikram Dorjee might assault him. He informed the matter to the
                 parents of Santosh who was by then taken to Birpara hospital.
                 Sankar accompanied father of Santosh from Birpara to G
            ..   Jalpaiguri Hospital. Santosh was later on transferred to Silliguri
 ·~


                 medical college where he died the next day. Prosecution case
                 the Birpara P.S. case no. 44/2002 dated 15.6.2002 was started
                 against the accused Bikram Dorjee under Section 304 IPC.
                                                                                    H
    888        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009) 6 S.C.R.


A After investigation charge sheet was filed. Since the accused
  pleaded innocence trial was held.                                             • >-


       The trial Court found the appellant guilty and convicted him
  in terms of Section 304 Part I IPC. The appeal filed by the
B appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
        4. The only point in support of the appeal is relating to
    quantum of sentence.                                               ·•

          5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the
c judgment.
       6. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would
  do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public
  confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long
D endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, 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 etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this
  Court in Sevaka Peruma/ etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu (AIR
E 1991 SC 1463).

         7. The logic behind the sentence in a criminal trial has
    been highlighted by this Court in State of M.P. v. Ghanashyam
                                                                            • :
    Singh (2003 (8) sec 13).
F
       8. After giving due consideration to the facts and
  circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate
  sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and
  mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been
  committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really
G
  relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court.
  Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very
                                                                            •
                                                                                   ..
  aptly indicated in Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of
  Callifomja: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a
  foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable
H
   BIKRAM DORJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                   889
            [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
criteribn in determining a just and appropriate punishment in A
the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity
of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may
provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess
various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity
of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, B
is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably
distinguished.

     9. The object should be tO protect the society and to deter
the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing     c
appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would
operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence
which reflects the c0nscience of the society and the sentencing
process has to be stem where it should be.

      10. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on D
the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile
exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates
to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping,
misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences
involving moral turpitude or moral delihquency which have great E
impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight
of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude
by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view
merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences
will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against F
societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened
by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.

      11. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate
punishment is not awarded for a crime which .has been G
committed not only against the individual victim but also against
the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The
punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant
but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and
                                                                   H
    890        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 6 S.C.R.


A brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the
  enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it
  should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the
  criminal".

B          12. Though life sentence in appropriate cases can be
    imposed in a case relatable to Section 304 Part I IPC, on the
    peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that 10 years
    custodial sentence would meet the ends of justice. The appeal
    is.allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appellant be set at liberty
c   if he has served the sentence imposed.

    K.K.T.                                   Appeal partly allowed.




                                                                              '.
                                                                              -




                                                                          •