Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Amit @ Sanjay - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 759 of 2019
Decided On : 05-04-2022
An appeal against a sentence under Section 375 of Cr.P.C. is permissible regarding its legality, especially in the context of financial hardship of the convicted individual.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) and Section 375 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - The appellant was convicted under Sections 392/34 IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs.20,000/- and imprisonment already undergone - The appellant sought to waive the fine citing inability to pay due to financial hardship - Section 375 does not bar appeal on sentence legality if convicted by a lower court - The court considered the appellant's circumstances and modified the fine to Rs.500/- - The appellant was released for the period already undergone and payment of the reduced fine only. (Paras 1-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under IPC Sections for robbery and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant questioning the fine amount's legality due to financial hardship.
Findings of Court:
The appellant's fine was reduced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.500/-, and he was released for the period already served.
Issues: The primary question was whether an appeal on the sentence was maintainable when the original conviction was based on a guilty plea and the appropriateness of the fine imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that while Section 375 restricts appeals on certain convictions, it allows challenges related to the legality of the sentence. Considering the appellant's financial situation, the court deemed the original fine excessive.
Result: Appeal allowed in part; fine modified.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing background. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding appeal and sentencing. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal provisions on appeal maintainability. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. guiding principles on sentencing and punishment. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. modification of fine and reconsideration of sentence. (Para 9) |
| 6. conclusion and order of the appeal. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. (Oral)--The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.' in short) against the judgment and order on sentence dated 19.09.2018 passed by Mr. Ajay Goel, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 440396/2016 in FIR No. 473/2015 registered under Sections 392/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 (`IPC' in short) at P.S. : Dwarka (South), Delhi whereby, the appellant was convicted under Sections 392/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo, the sentence already undergone along with fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), the petitioner was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant on the point of sentence so as to waive-off the amount of fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) imposed vide order on sentence dated 19.09.2018. It is prayed that appellant be released on imprisonment already undergone. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the delay in filing the present appeal has already been condoned vide order dated 06.08.2019 in CRL. M.A. No. 12884/2019.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is from poor strata of society and is unable to pay the fine amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). The family of the appellant is stated to consist of aged parents, who are surviving on old-age pension and it is submitted that the appellant has no source of income. It is also submitted that the appellant has already undergone sentence of about of 03 years, one month and 14 days on the date when he was sentenced for the period already undergone vide order on sentence dated 19.09.2018.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that the learned trial court has already taken a lenient view and the appeal is not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 375 of Cr.P.C.
5. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised. Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') provides as under :
"375. No Appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty.
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal.-
(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or
(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence."
6. On a plain reading of the Section 375 of Cr.P.C., it can be deciphered that an exception is carved out under Section 375 (b) of Cr.P.C. regarding the maintainability of appeal on the legality of the sentence imposed by trial court.
7. In Palaniappa Gounder vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as (1977)2 SCC 634, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a court must take into account, the nature of crime, injury suffered, justness of the claim, the capacity to pay and other relevant circumstances in fixing the amount of fine/compensation.
8. In Karamjit Singh vs. State, reported as (2001)9 SCC 161, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realize his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make hi
