SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 469

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
KUMAR GHIMIREY - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF SIKKIM - RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 719 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.1948 of 2017)
Decided On : 22-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, Advocate, Ms. Shabana, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Rishi Chawla, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Gen., Ms. Aruna Mathur, Advocate, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Advocate, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Advocate, Ms. Geetanjali, Advocate, For M/S. Arputham Aruna and Co.

IMPORTANT POINT
Enhancement of sentence without notice to accused cannot be sustained.

Headnote:Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 386(b)(iii) r/w section 401 – Enhancement of sentence – High Court can enhance the sentence, but after giving opportunity of hearing to the accused – Instantly no notice issued to appellant – Enhancement not sustainable. (Para 15)

       1984 (Supp) SCC 518; (1990) 2 SCC 385; (1990) 4 SCC 718; (2002) 1 SCC 266 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant was convicted u/s 9/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 341 of IPC, and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 9/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 341 of IPC he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month.

       High Court while dismissing the appeal converted the sentence under Section 9/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 into sentence under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentence has been enhanced from seven years to ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/-.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in conviction. Trial court rightly imposed sentence of 7 years RI.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The High Court’s enhancement of the POCSO sentence from seven to ten years without notice to the accused was held unsustainable and set aside (!) . - Section 386 Cr.P.C. outlines that in an appeal from a conviction, enhancement of sentence is permitted, but only with the accused having an opportunity to show cause against such enhancement (proviso to Section 386) (!) (!) (!) . - The case reiterates that when exercising revisional or appellate powers to enhance, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard; failure to do so violates legal procedure as established in Surjit Singh and Govind Ramji Jadhav line of authorities (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment confirms that the appellate court may enhance in an appeal for enhancement, but not beyond the maximum that could have been inflicted by the trial court, and only after proper procedure (!) (!) . - The Court maintains the trial court’s seven-year sentence under POCSO Act and one month under IPC §341, while setting aside the High Court’s enhancement (!) .

What is the legality of enhancing the sentence without giving the accused notice and opportunity to show cause?

What is the proper procedure under Section 386 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence in an appeal against conviction?

What are the permissible limits on enhancing or altering an already-imposed sentence in an appeal from conviction?


JUDGMENT :

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of Sikkim High Court dated 20.09.2016 dismissing Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2015 filed by the appellant questioning the order of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Special Judge(POCSO Act, 2012)convicting the appellant under Section 9/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(POCSO Act, 2012), Section 341 of IPC. The appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 9/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 341 of IPC he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month.

3. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the Special Judge filed an appeal which though has been dismissed by the High Court but while dismissing the appeal sentence under Section 9/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 has been converted into sentence under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentence has been enhanced from seven years to ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/-.

4. As per the prosecution case, on 20.02.2014 at 1700 hours, Mangal Das Rai, PW.(father of Anjali Rai) resident of Lower Namphing, South Sikkim gave written complaint to Temi Police Station that the accused-appellant, Kumar Ghimirey had attempted to sexually assault his seven year old daughter, Anjali Rai, PW.1, at around 1330 hours in jungle. The FIR No.05(02) 14 under Section 376/511 of IPC was registered on the same day against the accused-appellant and the matter was taken up for investigation by the Officer-in-Charge of the PS i.e., Sub-Inspector(SI).

5. A chargesheet was submitted under Section 376/511/341/342 of IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Learned Special Judge framed charges under Section 341 of IPC and under Section 5 of POCSO Act, 2012, punishment under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and also under Section 376(2) of IPC. Statement of PW.1, (Child ) Anjali Rai was recorded. The mother of victim, PW.3 was examined. Father of the victim appeared as PW.2. PW.5 and PW.6 were the girls who before attending the school with the victim were returning at the same time. They also appeared in the witness box corroborating the incident. PW.9, Gynecologist, who examined the victim has also appeared in the witness box.

6. Learned Special Judge after considering the entire evidence convicted the appellant under Section 9/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 as well as Section 341 of IPC. In paragraph 25, the Special Judge while recording conviction held under Section 9/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 imposed simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs.50,000/-. Under Section 341 of IPC sentence imposed was simple imprisonment for period of one month. The appeal was filed by the appellant in the High Court which appeal though has been dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 20.09.2016 but while dismissing the appeal the High Court altered the conviction imposed by the Special Judge under Section 9/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 to Section 5(m) read with Section 6 and enhanced the punishment to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine or Rs.5,000/-. Paragraph 25 of the judgment of the High Court is as follows:

"25. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the evidence on record and the discussions supra, I cannot bring myself to agree with the finding of the Learned Trial Court that the offence was one under Section 9 punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. IT is undoubtedly commission of an offence under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act punishable under Section of the POCSO Act. The appellant is convicted accordingly, duly altering the conviction imposed by the learned Trial Court under Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only, under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top