Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
5. The case at hand shows to what bottomless pit speed of depravation and lust a person can go down. As indicated at the threshold, the custodian of the trust has betrayed the same. The father is supposed to protect the dignity and honour of his daughter. This is a fundamental facet of human life. If the pro- tector becomes the violator, the offence assumes a greater degree of vulnerability. The sanctity of father and daughter rela- tionship gets polluted. It becomes an unpardonable act. It is not only a loathsome sin, but also abhorrent: The case at hand is a sad reflection on the present day society where a most platonic relationship has been soiled by the pervert and degrading act of the father. The evidence on records clinchingly nails the ap- pellant as the offender.
6. The next question is whether any lenience in sentence G is called for.
7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved A through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new chal- lenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing sys- tem to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and B stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order" should meet the chal- lenges confronting the society. Friedman in his "Law in Changing Society" stated that, "State of criminal law continues to be – as it C should be – a decisive reflection of social consciousness of soci- ety". Therefore. in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The 0 facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.
8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sen- tence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of 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 F 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 Nadu (1991 (3) SCC 471).
9. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpabil- G ity of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily 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 spe- cial facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punish- H men! ought always to fit the crime·, yet in practice sentences are SIRIYA @ SHRI LAL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) 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 cir- culation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. !nevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of appar- ent injustice that are serious and widespread.
10. After giving due consideration to the facts and circum- stances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating fac- tors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed c are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant cir- cumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indi- cated in Dennis Counc/e MCGDautha 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 determin- ing a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the ab- sence 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 discretion- ary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished.
11. These aspects were highlighted in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Anr v State of Gujarat and Ors. [2006 (2) SCC 359] and State of Karnataka vs. Raju (AIR 2007 SC 3225).
12. In this case, the accused's lustful acts have indelible scar not only physically but also emotionally on the victim. No sympathy or leniency is called for.
13. Looked at from any angle the appeal is without merit and deserves to be dismissed which we direct. K.K.T Appeal dismissed.