SC criticizes judges for misplaced leniency - Times of India

NEW DELHI: Hitting hard at the lenient approach of certain judges in awarding light punishment in serious offences, the Supreme Court on Monday said misplaced leniency would sound the death knell for the sentencing system which has been fine-tuned keeping in mind victims' agony and society's cry for justice.

If a convict eventually did not get the punishment commensurate with the nature and gravity of his offence, "the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotined," said a bench of Justices S J Mukhopadhaya and Dipak Misra.

The judgment came in a case where the Rajasthan High Court had reduced the sentence of a person, convicted of launching a murderous attack with a sword on a young man resulting in complete severance of his palm, to a period of imprisonment already undergone, which turned out to be just seven days.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Misra said such leniency had a cascading effect, not only on the victim but also on society, which has reposed faith in judiciary to punish the culprits adequately to curtail the evil of crime.

Justice Misra agreed that judges had wide discretion in award of sentence after recording conviction. "Though the question of sentence is a matter of discretion, yet the said discretion cannot be used by a court of law in a fanciful and whimsical manner. Very strong reasons on consideration of the relevant factors have to form the fulcrum for lenient use of the said discretion," he said.

The Rajasthan HC had justified the exercise of discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by imposing a penalty of Rs 50,000 on the convict. But imposition of higher penalty did not impress the apex court, which faulted it mainly on the ground of misplaced sympathy.

Justices Mukhopadhaya and Misra said, "We do not think that increase in the fine amount or grant of compensation under the Indian Penal Code could be a justified answer in law (for lenient sentence). Money cannot be the oasis. It cannot assume the centre stage for all redemption. Interference in manifestly inadequate and unduly lenient sentence is the justifiable warrant, for the court cannot close its eyes to the agony and anguish of the victim and, eventually, to the cry of the society."

It increased the sentence of the convict to two years imprisonment while maintaining the Rs 50,000 fine amount imposed by the HC.