Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 404
(BEFORE B.N. AGRAWAL AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.)
RAVINDER - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 1136 of 2000,
Decided on April 27, 2006
The court has the discretion to reduce the sentence based on the period already undergone by the appellant and the facts and circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Section 376 - Conviction under Section 376 of the Penal Code - Court upholds conviction but reduces sentence
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the Penal Code and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court did not commit any error in upholding the conviction. However, it reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant.
Issues: Conviction under Section 376, reduction of sentence
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence based on the appellant's period of custody and the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, upholding the conviction but reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The appellant was discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
ORDER .
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The sole appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 376 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. On appeal being preferred, the High Court confirmed the conviction. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant first tried to persuade us that it is a case for acquittal. Having perused the records, we are of the view that the High Court has not committed any error in upholding conviction of the appellant as such it is not possible for us to interfere with the same.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of more than four years, as such the sentence of imprisonment awarded against him should be reduced to the period already undergone. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is a fit case where sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant should be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and while upholding conviction of the appellant, sentence of imprisonment awarded against him is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
