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

R.C.LAHOTI, G.P.MATHUR, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Sunil – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Kartikey, C.D. Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Gunratan Pandey and Ms. Kiran Suvarna, Advocates.

Important point

Where sentence of 8 years imprisonment awarded by trial Court for offence u/s 366 and 376 IPC was reduced by High Court to period undergone which was nearly 6 years and 2 months, sentence could not be termed to be inadequate or contrary to law.

Judgment

G.P. Mathur, J.—1. Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the judgment and order dated 11.9.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 979 of 1998.

4. The trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 342, 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine. He was awarded a sentence of 8 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of 2 months under Section 376 I.P.C. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the accused on various counts reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is nearly 6 years and 2 months.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence and is

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top