Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri. Narasimha, JJ.
Radheyshyam & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1248 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7283 of 2019)
Decided On : 12-08-2022
Enhanced Sentence - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - Section 302
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and the High Court enhanced their sentence without giving them an opportunity to defend their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court partly allowed the appeal, quashing the part of the High Court's judgment that enhanced the sentence without giving the appellants an opportunity to defend their case.
Issues: Enhancement of sentence without notice to the appellants
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's enhancement of the sentence without giving notice to the appellants was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The part of the High Court's judgment enhancing the sentence and denying remissions or pre-mature release to the appellants was quashed and set aside.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur vide which, though the High Court has confirmed the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), it has also observed that the case against the present appellant fell within the category of 'rarest of the rare cases'. It was further held that the trial Court has failed in not considering the present case to be falling in the category of 'rarest of the rare cases' for the purpose of awarding death sentence. The High Court therefore, directed that the appellants shall undergo imprisonment for the rest of their life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. It is to be noted that it was the appellants who had challenged their conviction by way of an appeal before the High Court. It is further pertinent to note that the State had not appealed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge thereby not awarding death penalty to the appellants.
4. No doubt that the High Court could have itself exercised suo moto powers and enhanced the sentence. However, prior to doing so, the High Court was required to give a notice to the appellants. Admittedly, the same has not been done.
5. As a result of the judgment and order of the High Court, the sentence awarded to the appellants has been enhanced without the appellants having an opportunity to defend their case as to why the enhanced sentence should not be granted.
6. In that view of the matter, we partly allow the appeal. The following part of the judgment and order of the High Court is quashed and aside:
'The accused-appellants shall undergo imprisonment in prison for the rest of their life for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.'
7. It is further clarified that the observations made in the impugned order with regard to the appellants being not entitled to any remissions or pre-mature release are also expunged.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Murder – There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life if an accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Judicial discipline requires that once conviction was confirmed by Supreme Court that too after hearing accused, High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on merits of case.
Life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC retains the right to seek remission, even when clarified to a maximum of 20 years by the High Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following proper procedures and accurately determining the appropriate section of the IPC based on the evidence and circumstances....
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 power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict's life as an alternate to death penalty can be exercised only by the High Cou....
The appellate court cannot enhance a convict's sentence when the appeal is filed by the convict and no appeal for enhancement has been filed by the state or victim, violating rights under natural jus....
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
