![Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [May 25, 2021]](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Screenshot-2024-09-17-192232.png)
| Citation | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 526 OF 2021(Arising from SLP (Crl.) No.3549 of 2018) |
| Date of Judgement | May 25, 2021 |
| Court | The Supreme Court Of India |
| Appellant | Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar & Anr. |
| Respondent | The State of Uttar Pradesh |
| Bench | Aniruddha Bose, Dinesh Maheshwari |
Introduction
This case revolves around the issue as to whether the sentences for multiple offences committed by appellants should run concurrently or consecutively. The appellants were convicted under the Indian Penal Code of serious offences and the question arises about proportionality and fairness of the punishment they received.
Background
The appellants herein were convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 363 kidnapping, 366 abduction and 3761 rape of the IPC. Their trial court sentenced them to various terms of rigorous imprisonment and did not indicate whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively. Appellant No.1 appealed to the High Court and certain modifications were made to the sentence, but again without indicating that the sentences would run concurrently. The matter then came before this Court, and the question was whether the sentence was proportionate to the period already undergone by the appellants.
Facts of the Case
The appellants herein were charged with serious criminal offenses under the IPC as far back as 2008 for the commission of crimes relating to kidnapping under Section 363, abduction under Section 366, and rape under Section 376(1). The appellants were convicted by the lower court on all these charges after trial. For the said offenses, the court awarded them different terms of rigorous imprisonment, but it failed to indicate whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively. This lack of clarity gave rise to confusion as to the aggregate length of their incarceration. Appellant No. 1 thereafter appealed to the High Court which while modifying some other aspects of the judgment of the trial court, especially the default provisions again remained silent on the question of running of sentences concurrently or consecutively. By the time the case came before the Supreme Court, more than 13 years of actual imprisonment had been spent by appellants and their behavior in jail was good. It was submitted on behalf of appellants that cumulative sentence of 22 years was disproportionate to the offence committed by them and, hence relief. Another one of the distinct contentions that was raised was as to whether the modifications made in favor of Appellant No. 1 should or should not be extended to Appellant No. 2, who had not challenged the judgment and order of the trial court.
Issues
- whether an aggregate period of 22 years was disproportionate to the offenses committed by the appellants?
- Whether the sentences of each offence should run concurrently or consecutively?
- Whether the variation used for Appellant No. 1 should also have been used for Appellant No. 2?
Contentions of the Appellants
Their primary submission was that a cumulative sentence of 22 years would be grossly disproportionate to the punishment deserved for their crimes.They Stated that they had already spent more than 13 years in jail and their behavior in the jail was good.
They also Pleaded for altering the default clauses of the execution to make it equally applicable to both the appellants.
Contentions of the Respondents
Started objecting to the reduction of the aggregate imprisonment, continuing that the offenses committed were of serious nature.
The sentences imposed by the trial court were proper and not contrary to any law.It was submitted that the default provisions need not be modified so far as Appellant No. 2 is concerned since he did not press any appeal against the judgment of the trial court.
Judgement
The Supreme Court judgment was incisive and focused on both the technical and substantive matters the appellants had advanced. It started by recognizing the arguments that the learned counsel representing the appellants had partly put forward, contending the imposition of a total sentence of 22 years of imprisonment was wholly disproportionate to the severity of their crimes. The Court took into account the fact that the appellants have undergone more than 13 years and 2 months of actual imprisonment and their behaviour during incarceration was good. The incidents relating to offences are of 2008 prior to the amendment brought about by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 which drastically changed the punishment for the offences under the Act.
The Supreme Court in the instant appeal has referred to the very same observations of the Constitution Bench in Muthuramalingam & Ors. v. State, 2014(13) SCALE 446, wherein it was expounded that consecutive life sentences cannot be given and reiterated more importantly for the present appeal, that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to cases tried by the Court of Sessions. While sub-section 2 of Section 31 of the CrPC does not prohibit consecutive sentences, the Court took cognizance of the fact that the needs of justice have to be duly harmonized with the principles underlying the award of punishments and their execution. It took into consideration the ancillary provisions under Sections 433 and 433A CrPC read with Section 55 IPC laying down a term of 14 years as the minimum point for imprisonment for life, subject to commutation by the appropriate government.
It is in light of these observations that the Supreme Court has chosen to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by modifying the awarded sentences of the appellants. The Court decided to quash the appellants’ sentences to a maximum period of imprisonment of 14 years. While deciding this, the court had taken into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case with regard to good conduct of appellants during their incarceration. It also took into consideration the time of commission of the offenses vis-à-vis the legal amendments.
However, the Court modulated this by specifying that there was a qualification insofar as Appellant No. 2 was concerned, since he did not file any appeal against the judgment of the trial court. Since the main allegation of enticement of the victim was against Appellant No. 2 and an appeal was not filed, the Court did not find any good reason to extend the benefit of the modification to him. The sentences/dejaration/default stipulations of the trial court in respect of Appellant No. 2 stood.
The judgment finally ended with the ruthlessness regarding the trial courts’ specifying, while awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment, whether sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively. Insufficient clarity in this regard resulted in wholly unnecessary and avoidable prejudice, sometimes to the accused and at other times to the prosecution.
In the ultimate analysis, the appeal was partly allowed by the Supreme Court, with modification of the sentences to the extent, in addition to the period undergone, appellants would not spend more than 14 years in total. The requirement to pay the fine amount and default stipulations, however, remained unchanged insofar as both appellants are concerned; it was noticed by the Court that Appellant No. 1 had already deposited the amount of fine. It is thus upon the weighing of these scales of justice that the judgment sought to strike a balance between the severity of offenses committed by the appellants vis-à-vis their right to fair and proportionate punishment.
Analysis
The Supreme Court has struck a delicate balance between the requirement of adequate punishment subject to the principle of proportionality. The Court has considered:
The legislative intent behind Sections 433 and 433A of the CrPC and Section 55 of the IPC, both providing schemes for reduction in sentences and commutation of life sentences.
The jail term undergone by appellants continuously for a period in excess of 13 years and their good conduct in jail.
The requirement of clarity as to whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively, to avoid confusion and undue prejudice to one or the other party.
The instances of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Muthuramalingam are, firstly, that precedent laid down insisting that consecutive life sentences cannot be awarded, and secondly, Section 31(2) of the CrPC being inapplicable to sessions trials.
The fact that the Court would limit the imprisonment to 14 years affirms the principle of proportionality, that punishment ought not to be so disproportionate to the offense committed. Secondly, courts have a role in interpreting and applying provisions related to dispensation of justice.
Conclusion
This judgment of the Supreme Court in the instant case has therefore reiterate the principle of proportionality while considering the question of sentencing in cases involving multiple offences. The effort to cap the imprisonment of the appellants at 14 years by the Supreme Court ensured an appropriate balancing of the severity with the circumstances of the appellants. This judgment, therefore, will further resolve the anomaly regarding clarity in the sentencing order not to cause unfair prejudice and falls in line with established principles of law relating to the execution of sentences.
References
- https://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1994/5/Trial-Courts-Have-To-Clearly-Specify-Whether-Sentences-Would-Run-Concurrently-Or-Consecutively-SC
- https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=001202203000&title=sunil-kumar-sudhir-kumar-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115164075/
- https://www.barandbench.com/columns/litigation-columns/the-lawyers-digest-supreme-court-judgments-passed-in-may-2021
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
Written by Nandini Achhra,Vivekananda institute of professional studies Delhi an intern under legal vidhiya.
