IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of Article 142 of Constitution cannot be resorted to impose sentence less than minimum sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant Gupta, J.

The State is in appeal challenging the Order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, sentencing the respondent for an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (The Act) to the sentence already undergone, but enhancing the fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3000/-.

2. The aforesaid Order of the High Court was passed in appeal filed by the respondent herein against the Order dated 12.03.2007 passed by the trial court whereby the respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/-.

3. In appeal, the High Court has recorded the statement of the counsel for the respondent that he does not wish to press the appeal on merit and confines his argument to the sentence part only. It was on such statement; the appeal was disposed of. The relevant extract from the order of the High Court reads as under:-

"(2) Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that he does not wish to press the appeal on merit and confine his arguments to the sentence Part only. He has challenged only quantum of punishment. He has submitted that, appellant has deposited the fine amount of Rs. 500/- and has been undergone sentence for 11 days during the course of trial......

(5) Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The order of conviction passed against the appellant is maintained. However, the sentence of six months R.I. awarded to the appellant is modified to the extent of sentence already undergone by him. His jail sentence is hereby set aside. The fine of Rs. 500/-imposed by the trial court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only)......."

4. Section 3(1) of the Act provides for a punishment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. Therefore, the only question is whether the High Court could award sentence less than the minimum sentence contemplated by the Statute. The relevant Section 3(1)(xi), as it existed prior to amendment by Central Act No. 1 of 2016, reads as under:-

"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, -

.............................

(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;

.............................

Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon judgment of this Court in Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80 wherein an argument raised by the appellant was rejected that sentence less than minimum sentence can be awarded in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court held as under:-

"27. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, if we correctly understand, in essence, is that the power under Article 142 of the Constitution should be invoked. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision of this Court in Vishweshwaraiah Iron & Steel Ltd. v. Abdul Gani, (1997) 8 SCC 713 wherein it has been held that the constitutional powers under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory provision but at the same time, these powers are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided for in any statute dealing expressly with the subject. It was also made clear in the said decision that this Court cannot altogether ignore the substantive provisions of a statute.

xxx xxx xxx

30. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, where the minimum sentence is provided, we think it would not be at all appro