THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
1 min read
The Supreme Court has held that the absence of any subsequent involvement in similar criminal activity over a prolonged period is a relevant factor while determining the appropriate sentence, even in cases involving serious offences relating to forged documents.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code but reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone. The Court observed that, “The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence.”
The case arose from the appellant's use of a forged Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika as a surety document in judicial proceedings. The trial court had convicted him for forgery and use of forged documents and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment on each count, with the sentences running concurrently. The conviction and sentence were subsequently affirmed by the High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant did not challenge his conviction but sought reconsideration of the sentence. It was argued that he was not a habitual offender and that no criminal antecedents or similar offences had been attributed to him either before or after the incident in question.
Accepting this submission, the Court noted that no material had been placed on record to suggest that the appellant had engaged in similar criminal conduct during the decade-long period since the initiation of criminal proceedings in 2014. The Bench also took into account that the forged document was detected at the threshold stage and did not result in any irreversible pecuniary or proprietary loss.
Emphasising the principle of proportionality in sentencing, the Court observed that punishment must be determined after balancing the nature of the offence with the surrounding facts and circumstances, the role of the accused, the period of incarceration already undergone, the passage of time and other mitigating factors. The Court stated that sentencing cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise divorced from the factual matrix of the case and the circumstances of the offender.
Relying on its earlier decision in Padum Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020), where a similar approach was adopted despite maintaining the conviction, the Court concluded that the interests of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
Accordingly, while affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court modified the sentence and directed the appellant’s release, subject to compliance with the fine imposed by the trial court.