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

2021 Supreme(MP) 775

High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Shailendra Shukla, J.
RAMPRASAD SALVI – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENT
Cri. Appeal No. 1174 of 2016
Decided On : 26-10-2021

The court has the discretion to reduce the sentence based on the period already served by the appellant.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Abetment of Suicide - The court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under section 305 of the Indian Penal Code but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under section 305 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the suicide of a minor named Meenu and was sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine.

Finding of the Court:

The court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was 5 years and 4 months, and ordered the appellant's release.

Issues: The main issue was the quantum of sentence, with the appellant seeking a reduction to the period already served.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the period already undergone by the appellant and deemed it appropriate, leading to the decision to reduce the sentence.

Final Decision: The conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and the appellant was ordered to be released.

ORDER : – Vide judgment dated 22-8-2016 passed in ST No. 19/2013 by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Link Court Javad, District Neemuch (M. P.), the appellant has been convicted under section 305 of Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation of 3 months R.I.

2. The accusation against the appellant is that he had abetted the committal of suicide of a minor namely Meenu.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not seek to challenge the conviction of the appellant and instead of pressing for suspension of sentence, he seeks to reduce the quantum of sentence to the period already undergone.

4. It is submitted that out of 7 years of R.I., the appellant has completed 5 years and 4 months in jail.

5. Learned counsel for the State was heard, who has opposed the aforesaid prayer.

6. Perused the material available on record and the evidence which has been led by the prosecution. A perusal of the same shows that conviction of the appellant under section 305 of Indian Penal Code is appropriate.

7. Reverting to the quantum of sentence, this Court is of the view that the period which has already been undergone i.e. 5 years and 4 months, would be appropriate to the appellant.

8. Consequently, the conviction is affirmed and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. This criminal appeal accordingly stands allowed partly on the question of quantum of sentence.

9. Let a copy of this order along with the record of the trial Court be sent to the trial Court for effectuating release of the appellant forthwith.

10. The application for suspension of sentence (IA No. 22957/2021) is, thus, not being decided as the whole criminal appeal has been disposed of.

11. The Criminal Appeal No. 1174/2016 stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

    C.C. as per rules.

    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 Back to top