Back
2005(8) Supreme 274
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
State of M.P. —Appellant
versus
Sunil —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 118/2005)
Decided on 24-10-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Kartikey, C.D. Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Gunratan Pandey and Ms. Kiran Suvarna, Advocates.
Judgment
G.P. Mathur, J.—1. Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the judgment and order dated 11.9.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 979 of 1998.
4. The trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 342, 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine. He was awarded a sentence of 8 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of 2 months under Section 376 I.P.C. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the accused on various counts reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is nearly 6 years and 2 months.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence and is contrary to the minimum prescribed by law.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the sentence which the accused has already undergone i.e. 6 years and 2 months cannot be said to be inadequate or contrary to law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
****************
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
