Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Nandu @ Nandua – Respondent
SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 579 of 2020
Decided On : 11-07-2022
Sentence Reduction - Criminal Law - The court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of the accused based on the right to private defence, leading to a challenge on the grounds of error in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
Fact of the Case:
The trial court convicted the accused for various offences under the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court had committed a grave error in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, considering that the only sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC would be life imprisonment.
Issues: The issue revolved around the reduction of the accused's sentence by the High Court, despite maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the right to private defence and the imposition of the appropriate sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court issued notice for final disposal, indicating a challenge to the reduction of the accused's sentence.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court convicted the respondent-accused - Nandu @ Nandua (A1) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC and has sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment.
3. It is submitted that on the one hand, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has maintained the conviction however, by giving the benefit of right to private defence, the sentence of the respondent is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. It is submitted that at the time when the High Court passed the impugned order, the respondent-accused had undergone approximately 7 years and 10 months. It is submitted that once the conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is maintained, the only sentence which can be imposed would be life imprisonment. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone i.e. 7 years and 10 months.
4. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 29.08.2022.
5. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
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.
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 court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC while modifying the sentence to the time already served due to mitigating circumstances.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC but reduced the sentence to the time already served, considering the lengthy trial and circumstances of the case.
:Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate.
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
