Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2663
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
State Of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Raju @ Nathi - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 780 of 2015
Decided On : 23-09-2017
Mr. S.K. Vyas, A.A.G. and Mr. Vishnu Kachhwaha, P.P, for the Appellant; Mr. Govind Suthar, Amicus Curiae, for the Respondent
The quantum of sentence can be interfered with only when it results in a miscarriage of justice and is manifestly inadequate or unduly lenient in a particular case.
Headnote:
Section 377 Cr.P.C. - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Quantum of Sentence
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was found in possession of 17 grams of smack and charged under Section 8/21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial court convicted the respondent and awarded a sentence of 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons given by the trial court for the sentence were valid, considering it was the first offence, the accused had confessed, and he was suffering from a serious disease. The court also considered the report that the respondent had a spinal cord fracture and was confined to bed, concluding that the sentence was not inadequate in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sentence awarded by the trial court was adequate, and if there was a need for enhancement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the quantum of sentence can be interfered with only when it results in a miscarriage of justice and is manifestly inadequate or unduly lenient in a particular case. The court considered the specific reasons given by the trial court for the sentence and the peculiar circumstances of the case, including the respondent's medical condition, in deciding not to enhance the sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal for enhancement of sentence was dismissed, and the court found no substance in the appeal, thus upholding the original sentence.
JUDGMENT
Arun Bhansali, J. - This State appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C., 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 08.07.2015 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh (''the trial court'') in Session Case No.24/2009, whereby while convicting the respondent-accused for offence under Section 3/21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (''the Act''), the accused has been awarded sentence of 3 months'' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- as fine.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.07.2009, SHO, PS Sangariya apprehended the respondent and recovered 17 grams of smack from his possession. After undertaking procedure, the challan was filed against the accused and on 06.10.2008, he was charged with offences under Section 8/21 of the Act, which he denied and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution produced three witnesses and exhibited eight documents. When the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded, he accepted having committed the offence and prayed for early disposal of the case on account of his physical condition.
4. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent-accused was guilty of offence under Section 8/21(b) of the Act. While awarding sentence, the trial court noticed that it was the first offence of the accused, there was no history of any grievous conviction and looking to his physical condition, sentenced him to 3 months'' rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 500/-. It was further ordered that in default of payment of fine, he would further undergo imprisonment for 5 more days.
5. Alleging the sentence awarded as inadequate, the present appeal has been filed, which was admitted on 18.08.2015 and the respondent-accused was summoned through bailable warrant and when despite service of bailable warrant, the accused did not appear, he was summoned through non-bailable warrant, which was received back with the report that the respondent-accused was bedridden.
6. The SHO, PS Sangariya was directed to visit the respondent and make an inquiry and give a detailed report of his illness. The SHO pursuant to the directions of this Court, has submitted his report to the effect that the respondent was bedridden and is not in a position to move and the financial condition of the family was very poor. In view of the said report, the warrant of arrest was recalled.
7. It is submitted by learned public prosecutor that the trial court committed error in awarding lesser sentence to the accused though he was found guilty of the offence under Section 8/21(b) of the Act. The reasons indicated by the trial court are not sufficient and, therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial court be enhanced.
8. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the trial court has recorded sufficient reasons for awarding sentence to the respondent-accused and, therefore, the sentence does not call for any enhancement. It was submitted that though initially the respondent denied the charge and claimed trial, at the time of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 he has admitted the charge as on account of his physical condition, he wanted disposal of the proceedings expeditiously. Further submissions were made that from the report submitted by the SHO, it is apparent that the respondent has suffered fracture of his spinal cord and is totally confined to bed and, therefore, in those circumstances also, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is well settled that quantum of sentence can be interfered with when failure to impose proper sentence results in miscarriage of justice and the sentence is manifestly inadequate or unduly lenient in a particular case.
10. The trial court while awarding sentence has specifically given out the reasons that the present was the first offence of the accused, there was no previous conviction
