Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rameshwar Vyas, J.
Panna Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1001 of 2016
Decided On : 02-12-2021
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING - The court modified the appellant's sentence for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC from ten years to eight years, considering the appellant's age, lack of prior convictions, and time already served, while affirming the conviction and maintaining the sentence under the Arms Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for causing a stab injury and sentenced to ten years imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and one year under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The appellant sought a reduction in sentence, having served over eight years.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence under Section 307 IPC from ten years to eight years, taking into account the appellant's age at the time of the incident and his lack of prior convictions.
Issues: Whether the sentence awarded to the appellant should be reduced given the time already served and the appellant's age and background.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly for young offenders, and the importance of rehabilitation over retribution, leading to a reduction in the sentence.
Result: The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the sentence under Section 307 IPC to eight years while maintaining the sentence under the Arms Act.
JUDGMENT
Rameshwar Vyas, J. - The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22.9.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.14/2014, whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Offence for which convicted
|
|
| Sentence awarded |
|
| Section 307 IPC | Ten years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months imprisonment |
| Section 4/25 of Arms Act | One year imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further under five days imprisonment |
2. Without challenging the judgment of conviction of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the appellant has served more than eight years of imprisonment, hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court may be reduced from ten years to the period already undergone by the appellant.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that one stab injury was caused by the appellant to the injured. Appellant has served more than eight years of imprisonment. Appellant was below 21 years of age at the time of incident and he was not previous convict at that time.
6. In the above circumstances, while affirming the judgment dated 22.9.2016 passed by the trial court qua conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, the same is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced from ten years to eight years with fine of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the trial court. In default of payment of fine, appellant shall further undergo two months imprisonment as awarded by the trial court. Sentence of one year imprisonment for offence under Section 4/25 of Arms Act and fine of Rs.5,00/- with default clause of five days additional imprisonment, is maintained. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
The court established that in sentencing young offenders, factors such as age, prior criminal history, and time served should be considered to promote rehabilitation.
The court may reduce a sentence based on the time already served and the circumstances of the case, while maintaining the conviction.
The court can reduce a sentence based on the time already served and the circumstances surrounding the case, even when upholding a conviction.
The court considered the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence, and all other attendant circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence for the appellants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioners while maintaining the amount of fine, considering ....
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
