SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Nandu @ Nandua - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1356 of 2022
Decided On : 02-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 – Murder, hurt and rioting – Common intention – Reduction of sentence from life imprisonment to sentence already undergone by giving benefit of right to private defence – Though High Court has maintained conviction of respondent - accused for offence under Section 302 IPC, but High Court has reduced the sentence to already undergone (Seven years and ten months) – Same is impermissible and unsustainable – Punishment for murder under Section 302 IPC shall be death or imprisonment for life and fine – Minimum sentence provided for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine – There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life if an accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC – Any punishment less than imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court reducing sentence of respondent-accused to sentence already undergone while maintaining conviction of respondent-accused for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of IPC quashed and set aside and judgment and order passed by Trial Court imposing life imprisonment restored. (Paras 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1995 by which the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent - accused and has reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to sentence already undertone while maintaining his conviction for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, State has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Respondent-accused to be arrested and to undergo life imprisonment for which eight weeks’ time given to accused to surrender before concerned Court/Jail Authority.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1995 by which the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent -accused – Nandu @ Nandua and has reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to the sentence already undertone while maintaining his conviction for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the State has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant -State.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Trial Court convicted the respondent - accused alongwith other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. However, by the impugned judgment and order, though the High Court has maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC by giving benefit of right to private defence, the High Court has thereafter interfered with the sentence and reduced the same to the already undergone by him. At this stage, it is required to be noted that by the time, the High Court passed the impugned judgment and order reducing the sentence, the period of sentence undergone by the respondent -accused was approximately seven years and ten months.
4. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that when the High Court has maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the punishment which can be imposed would be punishment with death or imprisonment for life and also fine, but in any case, it shall not be less than the imprisonment for life.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted that once an accused is held to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the minimum sentence, which is imposable would be the imprisonment for life and, therefore, any punishment/sentence less than the imprisonment for life shall be contrary to Section 302 of the IPC. It is submitted that therefore the High Court has committed a very serious error in reducing the sentence to already undergone (seven years and ten months).
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which though the High Court has maintained the conviction of the respondent -accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to already undergone, i.e., seven years and ten months, we are of the firm view that the same is impermissible and unsustainable. The punishment for murder under Section 302 IPC shall be death or imprisonment for life and fine. Therefore, the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine. There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order though the High Court has specifically maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to sentence already undergone which is less than imprisonment for life, which shall be contrary to Section 302 IPC and is unsustainable.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the sentence of the respondent – accused to the sentence already undergone while maintaining the conviction of the respondent – accused fo
Murder – There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life if an accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the imposition of the appropriate sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, considering the right to private defence.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC while modifying the sentence to the time already served due to mitigating circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 299 and Section 300 of IPC, and t....
Attempt to murder – To attract offence under Section 307, IPC victim need not suffer any kind of bodily injury – Offence to commit murder punishable under Section 307, IPC is constituted by concurren....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reformatory approach of the criminal justice system and the application of the doctrine of proportionality in imposing punishment.
The court has the authority to modify a sentence based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.