Are long drawn litigation processes considered as a mitigating factors while awarding sentence?

I am not being original when I say that litigation in India is a mentally draining experience, both for the accused and the victim.   For the accused, the psychological trauma of undergoing numerous years of never ending litigation is the biggest punishment.  Whilst the final judgment is being awarded there is always an apprehension in the mind of the accused whether the mental torture suffered in the long drawn litigation process will act as one of the mitigating factors by the Supreme Court while awarding judgment.

There is no straight jacket formula which is applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while awarding sentence.  Below is one interesting case  (V.K. VERMA v. CBI [2014] INSC 96 (14 February 2014) which sheds light on the rationale adopted by the Supreme Court while awarding sentence.

What is this case all about?

The accused in this case was tried under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.  The charge was that the accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.265/- from a contractor. According to the accused, the contractor had an axe to grind since the accused did not budge to his demand for improper measurement of the work done by him and he was actually trapped at his instance. FIR was registered on 21.12.1984. The sessions court convicted him of the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under the charged Sections, as per Judgment dated 10.04.2003.

What happened thereafter?

The accused approached the High Court.  However, the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.  The accused therefore approached the Supreme Court.

What factors did Supreme Court take into consideration?

It was noted by the Supreme Court that it took ten years for the matter to be registered as sessions case and stranger is it to see that the trial also took almost ten years and still stranger is that the matter took ten years in the High Court.

Pursuant to dismissal of the appeal before the High Court, the appellant surrendered before the Special Judge on 03.10.2003 and he was sent to custody. On 28.10.2013, the Supreme Court issued notice limited to the quantum of sentence. Thereafter, by Order dated 16.12.2013, the appellant was enlarged on bail.

In imposing a punishment, the concern of the court is with the nature of the act viewed as a crime or breach of the law. The maximum sentence or fine provided in law is an indicator on the gravity of the act. Having regard to the nature and mode of commission of an offence by a person and the mitigating factors, if any, the court has to take a decision as to whether the charge established falls short of the maximum gravity indicated in the statute, and if so, to what extent.

Did the Supreme Court factored in the long delay while awarding the sentence?

It was observed by the Supreme Court that the long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence.

How did the foregoing principle affect the case under discussion?

The Supreme Court took into consideration that the FIR was registered by the CBI in 1984. The matter came before the sessions court only in 1994. The Session’s court took almost ten years to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment. Before the High Court, it took another ten years. Thus, it is a litigation of almost three decades in a simple trap case and that too involving a petty amount.

The Supreme Court took into consideration that the accused was 76 years of age at the stage of filing the appeal. The Supreme Court was also informed that he the accused was in not in good health, having had also cardio vascular problems. The offence was of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal on the grounds that at that age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, the Supreme Court opined that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction.

The substantive sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone. However, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was imposed as fine.