STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusBABLU

                   (2014] 9 S.C.R. 467


             STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                         A
                            v.
                         BAB LU
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1845 of 2014)
                   AUGUST 26, 2014.
                                                              8
  [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860:

      ss. 354 and 323 - Accus_ed outraging the modesty of a c
woman - Conviction and sentence of six months
imprisonment by trial court - High Court maintaining the
conviction but reducing the sentence to the period undergone
i.e. 21 days - Held: High Court in a very casual manner
reduced the sentence merely on the ground that the accused D
is first offender - If such a view is taken, the accused, who
commit such offences, will be emboldened and repeat such
crime, which is totally detrimental to the society - Impugned
order of High Court reducing the sentence is set aside and,
to avoid miscarriage of justice, sentence imposed by trial · E
court is restored - Sentence/sentencing - Crimes against
women.

    Sentence/sentencing:

     Six months imprisonment imposed by trial court for F
outraging the modesty'of a woman - Plea' for leniency and to
maintain the sentence of period already undergone i.e. 21
days as reduced by High Court - Held: social impact of the
crime where it relates to offences against women involving
moral turpitude or moral delinquency, which have great impact G
on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and
per se require exemplary treatment - Court must not only
keep in view the rights of the "victim of the crime but also the
society at large while considering the imposition of
                            467                               H
    468        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A   appropriate punishment - Meagre sentence imposed solely
    on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of
    the offence will be counter-productive in the long run and
    against the interest of the society.

       The instant appeal was filed against the order of the
8
  High Court reducing the sentence to the period already
  undergone i.e. 21 days from six months imprisonment
  awarded by the trial court u/ss 323 and 354 IPC to the
  accused who was found guilty of outraging the modesty
  of a woman. It was contended for the appellant-State that
C the High Court erred in reducing the sentence merely on
  the round that the respondent-accused was a first time
  offender and was facing trial since 2003.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
D
        HELD: 1.1. It is well settled proposition of law that one
  of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition
  of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is
  commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime
E and manner in which the offence is committed. One
  should keep in mind the social interest and
  consciousness of the society while considering the
  determinative factor of sentence commensurate with the
  gravity and nature of crime. The punishment should not
  be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society.
F It is, therefore, the solemn duty of the Court to strike a
  proper balance while awarding sentence as awarding a
  lesser sentence encourages any criminal and, as a result
  of the same, society suffers. [para 11) [473-C, DJ

G       Sevaka Perumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1991
   (2) SCR711 = (1991) 3 SCC 471; Dhananjoy Chatterjee@
   Dhana vs. State of West Bengal 1994 (1) SCR 37 = (1994)
   2 SCC 220; Mahesf'I. and others vs. State of Madhya
 . Pradesh, 1987 (2) SCR 710 = (1987) 3 SCC 80, Hazara
                                                =
H Singh versus Raj Kumar 2013 (5) SCR 979 (2013) 9 sec
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BABLU                   469


516; Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat, 2006            A
(1) SCR 477 = (2006) 2 SCC 359; Ahmed Hussein Vali
Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat 2009 (8) SCR 719
= (2009) 7 sc.c 254 - relied on.
     1.2. Indisputably, imposition of sentence without          8
considering its effect on the social order in many cases
may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the
crime where it relates to offonces against women
involving moral turpitude or- fTIOral delinquency, which
have great impact on social order and public interest,          C
cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary
treatment. Liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences
or taking sympathetic view merely on account of lapse
of time in respect of such offences will be counter-
productive in the long run and against societal interest
which needs to be cared for and strengthened by st~ing          D
of deterrence in built in the sentencing system. [para 18)
[477-E-F]

    1.3. It is reiterated that undue sympathy to impose
inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice           E
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. The
sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant         F
facts and circumstances bearing on the question of
sentence and proceed to impose a sentence
commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court
must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the
crime but also the society at large while considering the       G
imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre sentence
imposed solely on account of lapse of time without
considering the degree of the offence will be counter-
productive in the long run and against the interest of the
soGiety. [para 19) [477-G-H; 478-A-C)
                                                                H
    470        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A       1.4. In the instant case, the High Court in a very
    casual manner reduced the sentence of the accused to
    the period already undergone merely on the ground that
    the accused is first offender. If such a view is taken, the
    accused, who commit such offences, will be emboldened
s   and repeat such crime, which is totally detrimental to the
    society. [para 20] [478-C, D]

      1.5. Therefore, the impugned order of High Court
  reducing sentence to the period already undergone is set
C aside and, to avoid miscarriage of justice, the sentence
  imposed by the trial court is restored. [para 21] [478-E]
                          Case Law Reference:
       1991 (2) SCR 711            relied on         para 12
D      1994 (1) SCR 37             relied on         para 13
       1987 (2) SCR 710            relied on         para 14
       2013 (5) SCR 979            relied on         para 15
       2006 (1) SCR 477            relied on         para 16
E      2009 (8) SCR 719            relied on         para 17
        CRIMINAL APPELL.ATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1845 of 2014.

F       From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2012 of the
    High Court of Madhya Pradesh, .Bench at Gwalior in Criminal
    Appeal No. 664 of 2008.

          Sunny Choudhary (For C.D. Singh) for the Appellant.

G         Rajiv Kumar (For Kusum Chaudhary) for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          M.Y. EQBAL, J.1. Leave granted.

H         2. State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal by
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BABLU                      471
                [M.Y EQBAL, J.]
special leave against the judgment and order dated 2.11.201.2      A
passed by learned Single Judge of High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, who allowed the appeal, preferred
by the respondent-accused, in part maintaining his conviction
but reducing six months sentence awarded by the trial court to
the period (21 days) already undergone.          ·                 B

     3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.1.2003,
when the complainant was taking bath in her bathroom at
around 10 AM, the accused-respondent entered into her.
bathroom and caught hold of her hand with a bad intention and
asked her to come inside. When the complainant refused, the C
accused with an intention to rape her, started dragging her out
of the bathroom. When she screamed for help, two persons
reached there and the accused fled away knocking down her
on the groupd for which she received injuries O'.l her right elbow.
Complainant's husband had gone to village Badoli for some D
work and upon his coming back, the complainant reached the
police station along with him and lodged FIR. Upon her medical
examination on the same day, following injury on the person of
the complainant was found:
                                                                    E
     "Abrasion measuring Y2 x Y-i c.m. on the back side of the
     upper right forearm along with slight blood clots."

    4. The accused-respondent was arrested on 29.1.2003
and the case was committed to Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Guna, who after scrutinizing the   F
evidence available on record and after hearing the contentions
of both sides, convicted the respondent for the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal
Code (in short, 'IPC') sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/-.                 G

     5. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal
before the High Court, where the accused did not challenge his
conviction but prayed for reduction of awarded sentence.
Maintaining his conviction, the High Court reduced his sentence    H
    472        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A   to the period already undergone holding that the accused is first
    offender, fine amount has already been deposited and he has
    already undergone for 21 days.

         6. Dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, State of
    Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal raising issue
8
    whet~er the period of sentence for the offence punishable under
    Section 354 of IPC can be reduced to the period undergone
    for only 21 days just on the ground that the respondent is first
    time offender and is facing trial since 2003.

C       7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
    appearing on either side.

       8. It has been contended on behalf of the State that
  learned Single Judge of the High Court has failed to correctly
0 analyze   the act of the respondent through which he tried to
  outrage modesty of a woman. High Court has failed to correctly
  appreciate that the trial court has already taken lenient view by
  awarding sentence of six months .rigorous imprisonment and
  reduction of sentence to the period of 21 days with respect to
E the offences which deal with the aspect of outraging the
  modesty of the woman, would reduce the deterrent effect of the
  punishment provided under the Code for such offences.

        9. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the
  respondent that he was only 19 years old at the time of incident
F and he has already undergone physical incarceration for 24
  days and mental incarceration suffered for last 10 years. The
  respondenthas two children and has no criminal antecedent
  earlier to the alleged incident or after the incident and he is also
  entitled to the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
G Procedure. It has been further submitted that no minimum
  sentence has been prescribed under Section 354, IPC.

          10. Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code deals with
  assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her
H modesty and, as such, is reproduced hereunder:
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BABLU                           4 73
                [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
     "354: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent                A
     to outrage her modesty-Whoever assaults or uses
     criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or
     knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her
     modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
     description for a term which may extend to two years, or            B
     with fine, or with both."

      11. It is well settled pr-0position of law that one of the prime
objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just,
proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the                  C
gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence
is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and
consciousness of the society while considering the
determinative factor of sentence commensurate with the gravity
and nature of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient
that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is, therefore, the      D
solemn duty of the Court to.strike a proper balance while
awarding sentence as awarding a lesser sentence encourages
any criminal and as a result of the same society suffers.

     12. In the case of Sevaka Perumal vs. State of Tamil E
Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC 471, this Court observed that undue
sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence would
do more harm to. the justice system·to undermine the public
confidence in the efficacy of law and the society cannot long .
endure under serious threats. If the courts do not protect the F.
injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance.
Therefore the duty of any court is to award proper sentence
having regard to. the·natu.re of the offence and the manner in
which it was committed.,

     13. In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana vs.                 G
State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220, this Court held as
under:

     "In recent years, the rising crime rate-particularly violent
     crime against women has made the criminal sentencing                H
    474         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A         by the courts a subject of concern. Today there are
          admitted disparities. Some criminals get very harsh
          sentences while many receive grossly different sentence
          for an essentially equivalent crime and a shockingly large
          number even go unpunished, thereby encouraging the
B         criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by
          weakening the system's credibility. Of course, it is not
          possible to lay down any c1:1t and dry formula relating to.
          imposition of sentence but the object of sentencing should
          be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the
c         victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that
          justice has been done to it. In imposing sentences, in the
          absence of specific legislation, Judges must consider
          variety of factors and after considering all those factors and
          taking an over-all view of the situation, impose sentence
          which they consider to be an appropriate one. Aggravating
D
          factors cannot be ignored and similarly mitigating
          circumstances have also to be taken into consideration.

          In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a given case
          must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the conduct
E         of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state
          of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the
          manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for
          justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts
          should impose punishment fitting to the crime so that the
F         courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The court~
          must not only keep in view tbe rights of the criminal but also
          the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large
          while considering imp_osition of appropriate punishment."

G       14. While considering this aspect, the Apex Court in the
    case of Mahesh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
    (1987) 3 sec 80, remarked that,,

          " ... it will be a mockery of justice to permit these appellants
          to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such
H         evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BABLU                       475
                [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
    punishment for the appellants would be to render the             A
    Justice system of this country suspect. The common man
    will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and
    appreciates the language of deterrence more than the
    reformative jargon. When we say this, we do not ignore the
    need for a reformative approach in the sentencing process.       B
        "

     15. In the case of Hazara Singh versus Raj Kumar, (2013)
9 SCC 516, this Court has observed that it is the duty of the
courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an             C
appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the
judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy,
which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The
punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the
nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of
proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at        D
a fair and impartial verdict.

    This Court further observed that the cardinal principle of
sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender
should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be           E
proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has
repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in
sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.

    16. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2006)
                                                                     F
2 SCC 359, the Apex Court opined that

    "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting
    claims and demands. Security of persons and property of
    the people is an essential function of the State. It could be
    achieved through instrumentality of criminal law.                G
    Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living
    law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts
    are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the
    cha!lenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine
    social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and      H
    476         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A         stamping out criminal proclivity mast be the object of law
          which must be achieved by imposing appropriate
          sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice
          of 'or8er' should meet the challenges confronting the
          society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated
B         that: 'State of criminal law continues to be-as it should
          be-a decisive reflection of social consciousness of
          society.' Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law
          should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence
          based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing
c         process be stern where it should be, and tempered with
          mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given
          circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the
          manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive
          for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused,
          the nature of weapons used and all other attending
D
          circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the
          area of consideration.

          8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate
          sentence would do more harm to the justice system to
E         undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and
          society could not long 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."
F
         17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein
    Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC
    254, observed as follows:

          "99 . ... The object of awarding appropriate sentence
G         should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal
          from achieving the avowed object to (sic break the} 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 of the
H         society and the sentencing process has to be stern where
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BABLU                       477
                [M ..Y. EQBAL, J.]
     it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre           A
     sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on
     account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will
     be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against
     the interest of society which needs to be cared for and
     strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the             B
     sentencing system.

     100. Justice demands that courts should impose
     punishment befitting the crime so that the. courts reflect
     public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only
     keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but the      C
     society at large while considering the imposition of
     appropriate punishment. The court will be failing in its duty
     if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which
     has been committed not only against the individual victim
     but also against the society to which both the criminal and     D
     the victim belong."

      18. indisputably, imposition of sentence without considering
its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a
futile exercise. The social impact of the crime where it relates     E
to offences against women involvirig moral turpitude or moral
delinquency, which have great impact on social order and
public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require
exemplary treatment. Liberal attitude by imposing meagre
sentences or taking sympathetic view merely on account of            F
lapse of time in respect of such offences will be counter-
productive in the long run and against societal interest which
needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence
in built in the sentencing system.

      19. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose            G
 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
                                                                     H
    478        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A   executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to
    consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the
    question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence
    commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court must
    not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but
s   also the society at large while considering the imposition of
    appropriate punishment. Meagre sentence imposed solely on
    account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the
    offence will be counter-productive in the long run and against
    the interest of the society.
c      20. In the instant case, as noticed above, the High Court
  in a very casual manner reduced the sentence of the accused
  to the period already undergone merely on the ground that the
  accused is first offender. If such a view is taken, the accused,
  who commit such offence, will be emboldened and repeat such
D crime, which is totally detrimental to the society.

       21. For the reason aforesaid, we set aside the impugned
  order reducing sentence to the period already undergone and,
  to avoid miscarriage of justice, this appeal is allowed restoring
E the sentence imposed by the trial court. The respondent is
  directed to surrender within two weeks from today, failing which,
  the trial Judge is directed to take appropriate steps for sending
  him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
    Rajendra Prasad                                  Appeal allowed.