Why Punjab and Haryana High Court said not for judges to seek transformation of human nature, modified man’s jail term

Background

• According to the complainant, after returning from a morning walk, he found that his scooty was missing. He alleged that some unknown persons had stolen the said scooty.
• On the basis of the said statement, an FIR was registered. The Investigating Officer thereafter prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. Subsequently, the accused was arrested in another case involving NDPS Act during which the stolen scooty of the complainant along with 50 grams of smack was recovered from his possession.
• Thereafter, the accused was formally arrested in the present case and the offence under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code was added.
• After considering the arguments advanced, the testimonies of witnesses, and the evidence placed on record, the Trial Court, in 2018, held the accused guilty of offences punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner moved an appeal before sessions court which came to be dismissed. Therefore, he approached the high court.
• After arguing the revision for some time, counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been in custody since November 2016 and has undergone an actual sentence of 01 year and 9 days. He contended that he would confine his challenge only to the quantum of punishment awarded.

Court’s observations

• There is nothing on record to reflect that the petitioner possesses a criminal bent of mind or that his conduct poses any threat to society. Hence, by the broader principles of criminal jurisprudence, no adverse presumption can be drawn against him.
• The Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of UP observed that punishment must not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation and reintegration of the offender into society.
• It was further held that an appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the deterrent needs of the community.
• Sentencing, the court had noted, involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social, psychological, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure that justice serves both societal protection and individual redemption.
• The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based upon making an accused realize the consequences of the crime committed by him and the creation of the dent in the life of the victims and also the social fabric.
• The same by itself does not oblige the court to extend an opportunity to a convict for reforming himself.
• The principles of proportionality have to be balanced and the impact of the offence on the society as a whole and its ramifications on the victim and the immediate collectives also has to be examined.
• Moreover, Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria, in his seminal treatise “On Crimes and Punishments,” propounded the doctrine of penal parsimony, emphasising that the justification of any criminal justice system rests upon its capacity to inflict the least possible evil necessary to achieve its ends.
• The underlying premise is that punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity. The imposition of suffering or restriction upon an offender cannot extend beyond what is indispensable for the preservation of social order.
• The case in hand is yet another where interest of justice would warrant a reformative approach in precedence to a punitive or retributive approach.

Court’s directions

• While maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence passed is modified. The sentence is modified to the period already undergone.