Sentence reduction: on the basis of fact that nothing was recovered from the Accused
Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2016
Bench: Justice Dipak Misra; Justice Shiva Kirti Singh
Case Brief: In the present case, the matter was brought before the court by way of an appeal, from the judgement and order of the High Court. In the facts of the case, it was observed that the only appellant was accused no. 2 in the case before the Sessions Judge where he was charged along with other co- accused for offences under Sections 395, 397 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was observed that the Trial court held accused no.(s) 1 to 3 liable for offence under section 395 of the Code and also held that the prosecution failed to establish other charges and Trial court then sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of only year, along with 100 rupees fine. Accused no. 2, here appellant’s age was recorded by the Trial court as of 24 years and at the time when alleged offence was committed he was to be 21-22 years of his age. Against the decision of the Trial court, the State preferred an appeal under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sought the sentence enhancement in connection with the Accused no(s). 1 to 3, and in the judgement and order by the High Court, it had held to enhance the sentence of imprisonment, which was enhanced from 1 year to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment along with similar fine. Thus, the present bench was not required to interfere with the conviction of the appellant- accused no. 2, but sought to interfere with sentencing order of the lower court. Moreover, the bench was persuaded for the very same reason which was recorded by the Trial Court, that ‘nothing was recovered from him’, it should reduce his sentence of imprisonment. Moreover, on the facts found mentioned in the Surrender Certificate, the bench was also informed about appellant’s remained in jail for three years and two months. Moreover, the appellant is also shown to have paid fine of 100 rupees. Thus, the bench sought to reduce the period of sentence imposed upon appellant, to the period he had already undergone. Thus, he was directed to be released in the present matter, by allowing his preferred appeal.
Read the Judgement: