STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAKESH KUMAR

3.1. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily G allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving .at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. ·Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the H + 932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R A crime; yet in practice, sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes. the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his B crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from j1;1st desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread.· [Para 10) [938-F,G & J:i; 939-A]

3.2. Proportion between crime and punishment is a C goal respected in principle, and inspite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences.· The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the princ·iple of D proportionality has disappeared from. the law only in recent times. Even now for a single .grave infraction draStic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and E unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences. [Para 11) [939-8,C & DJ F

3.3. 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 G balahced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the. Court.· Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The soc.ial impact H of the crime, e.g. where it relates to o'ffenc.es a:gairist + -1 ~ + .A ..,, STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAKESH KUMAR 933 women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public A 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 B sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of 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. [Paras 12, c 13] [939-E & F; 940-8,C & D]