# 6 S.C.R. 884 BIKRAM DORJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [2009] 6 S.C.R. 884
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-04-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2009
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/6-s-c-r-884-bikram-dorjee-v-state-of-west-bengal-25940
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Sentence/Sentencing:
Life sentence for conviction uls 304 (Part I) /PC -
Propriety of - Held : Life sentence in appropriate case can
be imposed in a case re/atable to s. 304 (Part I) /PC -
However, on facts, 1 O years custodial sentence would meet
o the ends of justice - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part/).
Imposition of sentence - Determinative factors for -
Proportionality in imposition of - Discussed.
E
The question involved for consideration in the
present appeal was whether sentence of life
imprisonment could be awarded to the accused
convicted u/s 304 (Part I) IPC.
F
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 10 years custodial
sentence would meet the ends of justice. [Para 12) [890G BJ
2.1. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to the justice system to undermine
the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society
H
884
•
BIKRAM DORJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
885
could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, A
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.
[Para 6) [890-A-C]
2.2. After giving due consideration to the facts and
circumstances of each case, for deciding just and
B
...
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 c
balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in
a dispassionate manner by the Court. [Para 8) (888-F-G]
2.3. In the absence of any foolproof formula which
may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly 0
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.
[Para 8] [888-H; 889-A-B]
2.4. 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
E
to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience
F
of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern
where it should be. [Para 9) (889-C]
2.5. Imposition of sentence without considering its
effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality G
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 involvingAfuoral turpitude or moral delinquency
which have great impact on social order, and public H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A 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 such offences
will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and
B against societal interest which needs to be cared for and
strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the
sentencing system. [Para 10) [889-D-F]
2.6. Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate
c 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
0 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'. [Para 11]
[889-G-H; 890-A]
E
Sevaka Peruma/ Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991
SC 1463 and State of M.P. v. Ghanashyam Singh, 2003 (8)
sec 13, relied on.
Dennis Councle McGautha v.

## Text

A
8
c
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 884
BIKRAM DORJEE
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2009)
APRIL 24, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing:
Life sentence for conviction uls 304 (Part I) /PC -
Propriety of - Held : Life sentence in appropriate case can
be imposed in a case re/atable to s. 304 (Part I) /PC -
However, on facts, 1 O years custodial sentence would meet
o the ends of justice - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part/).
Imposition of sentence - Determinative factors for -
Proportionality in imposition of - Discussed.
E
The question involved for consideration in the
present appeal was whether sentence of life
imprisonment could be awarded to the accused
convicted u/s 304 (Part I) IPC.
F
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 10 years custodial
sentence would meet the ends of justice. [Para 12) [890G BJ
2.1. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to the justice system to undermine
the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society
H
884
•
BIKRAM DORJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
885
could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, A
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.
[Para 6) [890-A-C]
2.2. After giving due consideration to the facts and
circumstances of each case, for deciding just and
B
...
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 c
balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in
a dispassionate manner by the Court. [Para 8) (888-F-G]
2.3. In the absence of any foolproof formula which
may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly 0
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.
[Para 8] [888-H; 889-A-B]
2.4. 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
E
to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience
F
of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern
where it should be. [Para 9) (889-C]
2.5. Imposition of sentence without considering its
effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality G
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 involvingAfuoral turpitude or moral delinquency
which have great impact on social order, and public H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A 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 such offences
will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and
B against societal interest which needs to be cared for and
strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the
sentencing system. [Para 10) [889-D-F]
2.6. Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate
c 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
0 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'. [Para 11]
[889-G-H; 890-A]
E
Sevaka Peruma/ Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991
SC 1463 and State of M.P. v. Ghanashyam Singh, 2003 (8)
sec 13, relied on.
Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of Callifomia, 402 US
F 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711, referred to
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1991 SC 1463
Relied on
Para 6
G
2003 (8) sec 13
Referred to
Para 7
402 US 183: 28 l.D. 2d 711 Referred to
Para 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
H
..
BIKRAM DORJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
887
No. 827 of 2009.
A
... '
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.04.2008 of the High
Court of Calcutta in CRLA No. 459 of 2004.
Sree Narain Jha (A.C.) for the Appellants.
B
Tara Chandra and Neelam Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
c
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 D
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:
E
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
F
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 might assault him. He informed the matter to the
parents of Santosh who was by then taken to Birpara hospital.
G
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.
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 6 S.C.R.
A 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
B appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
4. The only point in support of the appeal is relating to
quantum of sentence.
·•
c
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 law and society could not long
D 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 Peruma/ etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu (AIR
E 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) sec 13).
•
:
F
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
G 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
Callifomja: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a
H foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable
BIKRAM DORJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
889
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
criteribn in determining a just and appropriate punishment in
A
the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity
of the crime. In 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,
B
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 c
appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would
operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence
which reflects the c0nscience of the society and the sentencing
process has to be stem where it should be.
10. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on
D
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 delihquency which have great
E
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 such offences
will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against
F
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
G
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
H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A 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".
B
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
c if he has served the sentence imposed.
K.K.T.
Appeal partly allowed.
'
-.
•