Manohar @ Manu vs State of Karnataka

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 1223

NAVIN SINHA, R. SUBHASH REDDY
Manohar @ Manu – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Chinmay Deshpandey, Adv.,Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 396 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life without any entitlement of remission for a period not less than 20 years.

3. Shri Deshpandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on (2016) 7 SCC 1 and submits that the trial court was not competent to direct that no remission would be awarded before 20 years. He submits that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to do so. The High Court, therefore, erred in not considering this aspect of the matter simply affirming the order of the trial court.

4. Mr. Raghupathy, learned counsel opposing the appeal relied on the same judgment to submit that there is no infirmity in the order. The court was competent to deny remission and once a judicial forum denies remission, the question of grant of any remission to the accused does not arise.

5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The appellant and the co-accused on 05.08.2007 are stated to have gone to the house of the deceased in the morning under the pretext of purchasing sarees. The dead body of the deceased was found in a pool of blood in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document