K. Pounammal v. State 2025 INSC 1014 - Sentencing - Prolongation Of Criminal Case

The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering: Supreme Court

Note

You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:

Read Judgment

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - In determining the final sentence and the nature thereof, variety of factors that would operate would include the intervening time between the commission of offence and the actual award of the sentence, age of the accused, the stress which he or she might have suffered because of passage of time during each case has remained pending and undecided, the family circumstance and such other factors, without becoming exhaustive. The process of sentencing by the courts is guided by theories such as punitive, deterrent or reformative. Each school of thought has its own object and purpose to explain awarding of sentence and its utility. Amongst these theories, reformative approach has become increasingly acceptable to the modern jurisprudence. Reformation is something always considered progressive. When there are mitigating circumstances, the court would lean towards reducing of the sentence. The focus would be on the crime, and not on the criminal. The society and system would nurture the guilt with positivity, while selecting the sentence.  (Para 6-7) The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It amounts to mental incarceration for the person facing such proceedings. For a person who is convicted and who has appealed against his or her conviction and sentence and who everyday awaits the fate of litigation, spends time in distress. In the present-day system of administration of justice, in which proceedings have often go on protracted unreasonably and therefore unbearably, the passage of long time itself makes the person suffer a mental agony. (Para 9)

Case Info

Case Name and Neutral Citation

  • Case Name: K. Pounammal v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
  • Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1014

Coram (Judges)

  • Justice N.V. Anjaria
  • Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Judgment Date

  • Date: August 21, 2025

Caselaws and Citations Referred

  1. M.W. Mohiuddin v. State of Maharashtra
    • Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 567
  2. Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat
    • Citation: (2008) 11 SCC 163
  3. Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall v. State of Gujarat
    • Citation: (2015) 15 SCC 506
  4. B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration
    • Citation: (1974) 3 SCC 85
  5. Dologovinda Mohanty v. State of Orissa
    • Citation: (1979) 4 SCC 557
  6. State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani
    • Citation: (2006) 1 SCC 407
  7. K.P. Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
    • Citation: (2015) 15 SCC 497

Statutes/Laws Referred

  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
    • Section 7
    • Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)