SUNIL DUTT SHARMA V/S STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI)

Advertisements

INTRODUCTION

Introduction: In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deliberated upon the appropriate quantum of punishment for the Appellant, who stands accused under the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has undertaken this critical assessment in strict adherence to the well-established principles and tests that guide the sentencing process within the domain of criminal law. Notably, the central focus of this meticulous evaluation is directed towards cases linked to the tragic occurrence of dowry-related deaths. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

• The appellant-accused underwent trial on charges related to Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the Penal Code”). 
• He was charged for the death of his wife during the night spanning from May 16, 1992, to May 17, 1992. 
• While the appellant was exonerated of the charges under Section 302 of the Penal Code due to the presence of reasonable doubt, he was, however, found guilty of the offense under Section 304-B of the Penal Code. Consequently, the appellant received a life imprisonment sentence.
• The Appellant therefore approached the Hon’ble High Court, challenging the order of the Hon’ble Trial Court. The conviction and the corresponding sentence were upheld by the High Court. 
• Discontented with this decision, the appellant filed an appeal before this Hon’ble Court, invoking Article 136 of the Constitution.

ISSUE RAISED

Whether sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant-accused for commission of the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code is in any way excessive or disproportionate?

RATIONAL FOR JUDGEMENT

• In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, the judicial act of sentencing constitutes an inherently discretionary process. Unlike some other jurisdictions wherein sentencing guidelines are codified through legislative statutes categorizing offenses, the legal landscape in India relies on the jurisprudential evolution of principles set forth by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

• These principles, as propounded by the Apex Court, establish a concrete and objective framework empowering the judiciary with the task of quantifying the appropriate punitive measures. It is noteworthy that these principles, initially delineated with regard to the imposition of the capital punishment, are posited as universally applicable, encompassing lesser penalties as well. The inherent discretion vested in the courts by legislative provisions to exercise judicial discretion necessitates adherence to the principles outlined.

• Central to the sentencing process are the Crime Test and the Criminal Test. The Crime Test pertains to the identification of aggravating circumstances, whereas the Criminal Test concerns the identification of mitigating circumstances. This judicial dichotomy draws its legitimacy from the statutory interplay of Section 235(2) read in conjunction with Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, reinforced by the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh (1980) 2 SCC 684. This imperative enjoins the court not to limit its inquiry solely to the circumstances enveloping the particular crime (Crime Test) but also obliges due consideration of the background and personality of the offender (Criminal Test) in determining the degree of punishment or sentence.

• Crucially, the principles and tests elucidated above are not confined to specific categories of offenses but extend their application to a panoply of transgressions, including those enshrined within Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

• Section 304-B of the IPC pertains to dowry deaths, vesting the judiciary with discretionary powers entailing a minimum incarceration term of seven years, extendable to the imposition of life imprisonment. The sentencing process in cases of dowry deaths necessitates a meticulous examination of all relevant factors. The application of the Crime Test and the Criminal Test is essential in the sentencing of Section 304-B IPC offenses, underpinned by their meticulous explication.

• Though the common objective of combating the societal malaise associated with dowry and the prevention of cruelty and violence against women permeates all offenses falling within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC, it is incumbent to recognize that such factors, despite their intrinsic importance, do not operate in isolation to dictate the sentence.

• The aspect of legal presumption in dowry death cases is that, where a conviction is premised upon the emergence of a legal presumption consequent to the occurrence of a dowry-related death within seven years of marriage. Recognizing that aggravating circumstances germane to the crime (Crime Test) may not be readily forthcoming, the judicial assessment should, in such instances, pivot towards the consideration of mitigating factors appurtenant to the offender (Criminal Test). It is the cumulative effect of all germane circumstances that ultimately shapes the determination of the quantum of sentence to be meted out.

JUDGEMENT

In accordance with the aforementioned principles and tests, and considering the specific circumstances of the present case, the Supreme Court has rendered its judgment. The Court has determined that a custodial sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment is not only warranted but also highly justifiable when compared to the original sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. As such, the Supreme Court has modified the High Court’s order with regard to the duration of imprisonment.  However, it is essential to note that the orders pertaining to any fines imposed remain unchanged. The accused-appellant, who is currently incarcerated, shall serve the remaining portion of the sentence in accordance with the terms outlined in the present order.

CONCLUSION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judicious deliberation, has rendered a considered judgment regarding the Appellant’s sentence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Adhering to the meticulously evolved principles and tests that govern the sentencing process in criminal law, the Court has determined that a custodial sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment is not only warranted but eminently reasonable when compared to the initial sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court.

REFERENCE

1. SCC Online
2. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860

This Article is written by Raj Nagre student of New Law College, Mumbai; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin