Sentencing Must Be Guided by Proportionality, Not Retribution: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the principle of proportionality remains central to the sentencing process and that punishment cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise divorced from the facts of the case and the overall circumstances of the offender.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by Israfil alias Pappu alias Naimuddin Khan. While upholding his conviction, Court reduced his five-year jail sentence to the two years of imprisonment already undergone in a case involving the use of a forged property document to stand as surety for an accused seeking bail.

The Bench said that while deciding the quantum of sentence, courts must balance the nature of the offence with the attendant facts and circumstances, the role attributed to the accused, the period of incarceration already undergone, the passage of time and other mitigating circumstances recognised under sentencing jurisprudence.

"The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence," Court observed.

Why did the Supreme Court reduce the sentence?

Court noted that the incident dated back to 2014 and that the appellant had remained under the shadow of criminal proceedings for more than a decade. It also found that no material had been placed before it to show that he was a habitual offender or had been involved in similar criminal activities either before or after the incident.

Another factor that weighed with the Court was that the forged revenue document was detected during scrutiny at the threshold stage of the bail proceedings. As a result, the alleged misuse did not lead to any irreversible pecuniary or proprietary consequences.

"Though that by itself does not dilute the seriousness of the offence, it nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance while considering the question of proportionality of sentence," the Bench said.

Court further observed that the case involved the use of a forged revenue document for furnishing surety in judicial proceedings. It was not a case involving organised criminal activity, large-scale economic fraud, systematic forgery affecting public institutions or recurring acts of deception causing widespread financial loss.

"While the offence cannot be treated lightly, sentencing must ultimately remain proportionate to the overall factual matrix and the degree of criminality reflected in the case," the Bench said.

What was the case about?

An FIR was registered on September 15, 2014, at Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa, alleging that the appellant had produced a forged Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika before a court and used it as a genuine document to secure bail for an accused. He was charged under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 318(4), Section 337, Section 338, Section 336(3) and Section 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)].

The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment, while acquitting co-accused Ashish Garg. In 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Examining only the question of sentence, the apex court acknowledged that offences involving forgery and the use of forged documents in judicial proceedings are serious in nature. It observed that Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC deal with offences that undermine the authenticity and sanctity of public and legal documents.

"Use of forged documents before a Court of law cannot be viewed lightly," the Bench said.

However, Court reiterated that sentencing must not become a purely punitive exercise. Referring to its earlier decisions, it pointed out that it had, in several cases, maintained convictions while reducing substantive sentences on account of factors such as the long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances.

Considering the nature of the allegations, the time elapsed since the incident, the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the appellant had faced criminal proceedings for more than ten years, Court held that the ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, Court reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone and left the fine imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the high court, unchanged.

Case Title: Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 

Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria 

Date of Judgment: June 23, 2026