IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 7671 of 2002() -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- JESSY JOHN, F.C.NO.2188, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. JESSY JOHN (PARTY IN PRISON) REP. BY ADV. ASHA LETHA VARMA (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER, J. -------------------------- CRL. M.C. No. 7671 OF 2002 -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT ---------------- A woman convict who is presently undergoing incarceration in Central Prison, Viyyoor sent a mercy petition to this Court highlighting her grievance that she may have to undergo imprisonment for nearly 25 years if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on her in all the 15 cases are to run consecutively. The said mercy petition has been converted as a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and placed on the judicial side for consideration. 2. The modus operandi of the Petitioner/Convict appears to be quite ingenious and innovative and if all victims were innocent woman whose near relatives were working in Gulf countries. Obviously the Petitioner/Convict is a glib talker as could be gathered from the submission made by Mrs. Ashaletha Varma, learned Counsel appointed as amicus curiae. The petitioner CRL. M.C. No. 7671 OF 2002 2 would visit the household of the victim and convince him/her that she knows the relative of the victim in the Gulf country. She would inform the victim that she had brought some gift/articles from their relative in the Gulf. She would make a request to the relative to send somebody to her house along with her so that she could hand over the gift/parcel. The person who accompanied the Petitioner ended up, giving their gold ornaments to her in lieu of which the Petitioner would give her fake gold ornaments and would vanish on the way mysteriously. Quite interestingly all the 15 crimes against the Petitioner were committed by her within a span of one year – between December 1998 to December 1999. Her areas of operations were confined to the districts of Palakkad and Thrissur. She ultimately landed up in the custody of the police. She was prosecuted. The courts concerned found her guilty in all the 15 cases. She was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment in all of them, the sentence ranging between one year to three years and also fine. CRL. M.C. No. 7671 OF 2002 3 3. It is on record that Petitioner now faces the gloomy prospect of undergoing imprisonment for a total period of 24 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs. 26,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for an aggregate of 34 months. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the prayer made by the Petitioner to allow her to suffer the sentence imposed on her in these 15 cases concurrently is to be allowed or not. 4. Mrs. Ashalatha Varma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this is a fit case in which the inherent power of this Court can be exercised at least to give the Petitioner/Convict to reform herself. She contends that the possibility of the Petitioner being forced to resort to this ingenious method to make a living for herself and for her three younger children cannot be ruled out. She might have been forced to commit those Crimes due to abject poverty. 5. This argument may appear to be attractive at first blush. But no doubt the Court must keep in view the salutary principles of CRL. M.C. No. 7671 OF 2002 4 reformation aspect in the sentencing policy while imposing punishment in criminal cases on the convicts. But at the same time it must also be remembered that interest of the society at large is also kept in view. It will be an affront to the society if the perpetrator of a crime is not brought to book and punished appropriately. The society will lose its faith in the entire criminal judicial system if the sentencing policy is not properly formulated. This may lead to further escalation of criminal activity in the society. Sentencing policy must have an element of deterrence as well. A clear message must be sent to those who indulge in such criminal activity that the hands of law are long enough to reach at them and that they cannot get away from the clutches of law. 6. Learned Counsel has invited my attention to a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Subramonian v. State of Kerala, reported in 1983 KLT 452. It is true that in this decision this Court held that in the matter of sentencing a person, the Court will have to note the fact that “human behaviour is the CRL. M.C. No. 7671 OF 2002 5 product of antecedent circumstances.” The measures employed to treat a convicted offender should serve a therapeutic function. Such measures should be designed to effect changes in the behaviour of the convicted person, the interest of his own happiness, health and satisfaction and the interest of social defences. A person who is sincerely trying to rehabilitate himself ought not to be demoralized . 7. Undoubtedly the above principles are quite salutary are eminently laudable. But in the case on hand there is nothing on record to indicate that Petitioner was forced into committing these 15 crimes because of any impecunious or such other compelling circumstances which were beyond her control. The modus operandi of commission of these offences particularly the short span of time within which these crimes were committed would clearly reveal a criminal mindset. She had deliberately chosen innocent gullible woman as her prey. She had persuaded all these innocent woman to part with their gold ornaments through her CRL. M.C. No. 7671 OF 2002 6 sweet and glib talk. In the petition forwarded to this office also the Petitioner has not shown any indication that she is repenent or that she wants to reform herself. What has been stated is only that if she is put behind the bar for a long period, her children would suffer. In Mohan Jose v. State of Kerala reported in 1988(2) KLT 542, a learned Judge of this Court in his inimitable style addressed the issue and held thus: “Crime merits punishment and punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of crime”........... “Except in cases where several offences are committed in the course of the same transaction, cases of multiple offences inviting consecutive sentences, will be cases inviting habitual offenders, and not first offenders or chance offenders. Generally speaking, such will not be the cases for reformation, for which persons are proven to be beyond reformative or corrective treatment. Deterrent sentences are called for in such cases. Even apart the rule in S. 427 of the Code, policy of CRL. M.C. No. 7671 OF 2002 7 law is very clear that is an extended sentence, or an additional sentence is merited for subsequent offences”.......................... “Sentencing policy is an important facet of criminal justice system, in the area of management. It has nuances and hues, wide and varied. Savage severity is not justified. Sentencing process must be humane, balanced and purposeful. Reformation theory, probation and soft sentencing norms, have received greater recognition in recent times.”.. “But, there is a third constituent-perhaps the most important-society, for whose protection criminal law is designed. The basic responsibility of criminal justice system is to protect society from transgression, and to enable society to enjoy life as a serene experience. The system must be result oriented. Unless the machinery ensures this, aggrieved might take law into their own hands and seek private vengeance, 'as long as human beings are warm blooded' and this will erode the foundation of the system.” CRL. M.C. No. 7671 OF 2002 8 The observations extracted above will, in my view, answer the question in this case. The answer is obviously against the Petitioner. The Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K. BASHEER Judge PKK