Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus NANDU @ NANDUA on 2 September 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
NANDU @ NANDUA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1356 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2022
[M. R. SHAH, JJ. AND KRISHNA MURARI]
Sentence/Sentencing – ss.147,148,323 and 302/34 of IPC –Reduction of sentence by the High Court – Proper or not – Therespondent-accused along with other accused was convicted forthe offence punishable u/ss.147,148,323 and 302/34 of IPC andwas sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial Court – High Courtmaintained the conviction under aforesaid sections but reduced thesentence to approximately seven years and ten months, the periodof sentence undergone by the respondent – State approached theSupreme Court and submitted that the reduction in sentence iscontrary to s.302 IPC – On appeal, held: Though the High Courthas maintained the conviction of the respondent for the offence u/s.302 IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to sentencealready undergone which is less than imprisonment for life, whichshall be contrary to s.302 IPC and is unsustainable – Judgmentand order of High Court set aside – Judgment and order passed bythe trial Court restored.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1356 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2019 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur in CRA No. 219 of 1995.
Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Dy. AG, Gopal Jha, Amit Sharma, Advs.for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur inCriminal Appeal No. 219 of 1995 by which the High Court has partlyallowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent - accused – Nandu
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A@ Nandua and has reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to thesentence already undertone while maintaining his conviction for theoffences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian PenalCode (IPC), the State has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned DeputyBAdvocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant - State.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned TrialCourt convicted the respondent - accused alongwith other accused forthe offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of theIPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. However, by theCimpugned judgment and order, though the High Court has maintainedthe conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148,323 and 302/34 of the IPC by giving benefit of right to private defence,the High Court has thereafter interfered with the sentence and reducedthe same to the already undergone by him. At this stage, it is required tobe noted that by the time, the High Court passed the impugned judgmentDand order reducing the sentence, the period of sentence undergone bythe respondent - accused was approximately seven years and ten months.
4. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate Generalappearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that whenthe High Court has maintained the conviction of the accused for theEoffence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the punishment which can beimposed would be punishment with death or imprisonment for life andalso fine, but in any case, it shall not be less than the imprisonment forlife.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted that once an accused is held to beFguilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the minimumsentence, which is imposable would be the imprisonment for life and,therefore, any punishment/sentence less than the imprisonment for lifeshall be contrary to Section 302 of the IPC. It is submitted that thereforethe High Court has committed a very serious error in reducing the sentenceGto already undergone (seven years and ten months).
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theState and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court by which though the High Court has maintained the convictionof the respondent - accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, butthe High Court has reduced the sentence to already undergone, i.e.,H
seven years and ten months, we are of the firm view that the same isimpermissible and unsustainable. The punishment for murder underSection 302 IPC shall be death or imprisonment for life and fine. Therefore,the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine. There cannot be anysentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused isconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Anypunishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishableunder Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC. By theimpugned judgment and order though the High Court has specificallymaintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC, but the High Court has reducedthe sentence to sentence already undergone which is less thanimprisonment for life, which shall be contrary to Section 302 IPC and isunsustainable.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presentappeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt reducing the sentence of the respondent – accused to the sentencealready undergone while maintaining the conviction of the respondent –accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of theIPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed bythe learned Trial Court imposing the life imprisonment is hereby restored.Now, the respondent – accused to be arrested and to undergo lifeimprisonment for which we give eight weeks’ time to the accused tosurrender before the concerned Court/Jail Authority.
Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H