REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.     827          OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.9285 of 2008)

Bikram Dorjee …Appellant

Versus

State of West Bengal …Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal  is to the judgment of a Division Bench of  

the Calcutta High Court holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable  

under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).  

He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by learned Additional  

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,  Alipurduar. Sentence was confirmed in  

the appeal.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

On  14.6.2002  at  about  4.30  p.m.  Santosh  Dorjee  along  with  his  

cousin brother Sankar Dorjee went to an eatery situated in front of Bhawani  

Video Hall of Birpara for taking food.  They placed order and were waiting  

there. All of a sudden one Bikram Dorjee came there and assaulted Santosh  

Dorjee by a knife in his belly. Seeing the same assault Sankar panicked and  

rushed  away  from the  place  of  occurrence  thinking  that  Bikram Dorjee  

2

might assault  him. He informed the matter to the parents of Santosh who  

was  by  then  taken  to  Birpara  hospital.  Sankar  accompanied  father  of  

Santosh  from  Birpara  to  Jalpaiguri  Hospital.  Santosh  was  later  on  

transferred  to  Silliguri  medical  college  where  he  died  the  next  day.  

Prosecution  case the Birpara  P.S.  case  no.  44/2002  dated  15.6.2002  was  

started against  the accused Bikram Dorjee under Section 304 IPC.  After  

investigation charge sheet was filed. Since the accused pleaded innocence  

trial was held.  

The trial Court found the appellant guilty and convicted him in terms  

of Section 304 Part I IPC.  The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed  

by the High Court.

4. The  only  point  in  support  of  the  appeal  is  relating  to  quantum of  

sentence.  

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment.

6. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm  

to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of  

3

law and society could not  long endure under such serious threats.   It  is,  

therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to  

the  nature  of  the  offence  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  executed  or  

committed  etc.  This  position  was  illuminatingly  stated  by  this  Court  in  

Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu (AIR 1991 SC 1463).  

7. The logic behind the sentence in a criminal trial has been highlighted  

by this Court in State of M.P. v. Ghanashyam Singh (2003 (8) SCC 13).  

8. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each  

case,  for  deciding  just  and  appropriate  sentence  to  be  awarded  for  an  

offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which  

a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of  

really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court.  Such  

act of balancing is indeed a difficult task.  It has been very aptly indicated in  

Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d  

711  that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a  

reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the  

infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime.  In  

4

the  absence  of  any  foolproof  formula  which  may  provide  any  basis  for  

reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the  

consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of  

each  case,  is  the  only  way  in  which  such  judgment  may  be  equitably  

distinguished.

9. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in  

achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence.  It is  

expected  that  the  Courts  would  operate  the  sentencing  system  so  as  to  

impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the  

sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.

10. Imposition  of  sentence  without  considering  its  effect  on the social  

order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of  

the  crime,  e.g.  where  it  relates  to  offences  against  women,  dacoity,  

kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences  

involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on  

social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require  

exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or  

taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of  

5

such offences will  be result-wise counter  productive in the long run and  

against  societal  interest  which needs to be cared for and strengthened by  

string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.  

11. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not  

awarded  for  a  crime  which  has  been  committed  not  only  against  the  

individual  victim but  also  against  the  society  to  which  the  criminal  and  

victim belong.   The punishment  to  be  awarded  for  a  crime must  not  be  

irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and  

brutality with  which the  crime has been perpetrated,  the  enormity of  the  

crime warranting public abhorrence and it should “respond to the society’s  

cry for justice against the criminal”.  

12. Though life sentence in appropriate cases can be imposed in a case  

relatable to Section 304 Part I IPC, on the peculiar facts of the case, we are  

of the view that 10 years custodial sentence would meet the ends of justice.  

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.  The appellant be set at liberty  

if he has served the sentence imposed.  

6

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 24, 2009

7