share this post:

Sentencing policy: Depend upon facts and circumstances

summary:

Points for consideration

2. This Appeal is preferred by the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2015 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.08.2019.

3. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction of the appellant/accused no.1 in Sessions Case No.42 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri by which, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

4. The sole appellant was tried along with three other accused persons for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 307 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused nos.2 to 4 were acquitted of all the charges, however, the appellant alone was convicted for offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

Arguments on quantum of punishment

10. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Chand and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 9 SCC 704], relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, this Court has reduced the sentence from eight years to two years mainly on the ground that the occurrence had taken place on spur of the moment without any premeditation and the same was on account of a dispute between the neighbours with regard to straying cattle. Further, in the judgment of this Court in the case of Madhavan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2017) 15 SCC 582], this Court has reduced the sentence of the accused who was convicted for offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC, to five years without disturbing fine amount, mainly on the ground that incident in question, happened all of a sudden without any premeditation and it was a free fight between the members of two families and both sides suffered injuries in the incident. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposing for modification of sentence, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Pyare Mishra v. Prem Shanker and Ors. [(2008) 14 SCC 614]. In the aforesaid judgment, while reversing the judgment of the High Court, this Court has convicted the accused for offence under Section 304(i) of IPC and imposed the sentence of eight years.

11. With regard to quantum of sentence, it all depends on background facts of the case, antecedents of the accused, whether the assault was premeditated and pre-planned or not, etc. In this case on hand, it is clear from the evidence on record that there was a dispute with regard to pathway, which the complainant’s family members were claiming from the land of the accused. In view of such interference, it appears that the accused filed a Suit and obtained injunction orders from Civil Court and in spite of the same, for violation of Court orders, the family members of the complainant were put behind bars for 30 days. The same is evident from the deposition of PW-1. The incident occurred in front of the house of the accused and when the female family members of the accused were assaulted, the appellant in retaliation seems to have assaulted the family members of the complainant. Trial Court itself has recorded that the de facto complainant’s family members are the aggressors and they have tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the accused from their land. The said findings recorded by the Trial Court, became final. The same was not questioned either by the State or by the complainant. It is also clearly held by the Trial Court that it was not a premeditated or pre-planned incident. It happened in a sudden quarrel on the day of occurrence i.e. on 14.06.2010.

PARTY: Govindan vs. State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1665 OF 2 021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.938 OF 2021) – December 17, 2021.

Source: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/8504/8504_2020_42_1501_32215_Judgement_17-Dec-2021.pdf

Files : Download

Further study

Related Posts

Subscribe For News

Get the latest sports news from News Site about world, sports and politics.

You have been successfully Subscribed! Ops! Something went wrong, please try again.

Subscribe For More!

Get the latest and creative news updates on criminal law...

You have been successfully Subscribed! Ops! Something went wrong, please try again.

Disclaimer:

Contents of this Web Site are for general information or use only. They do not constitute any advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any personal or public decision. We hereby exclude any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular page of the Site or any of its contents, including (but not limited) to any financial contents within the Site. We will not be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the site or any of its contents, or from any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any of its contents. We shall give no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything else which has contaminating or destructive user’s properties though we care to maintain the site virus/malware-free.

For further reading visit our ‘About‘ page.

© 2023 Developed and maintained by PAPERPAGE INTERNET SERVICES

Crypto wallet - Game Changer

Questions explained agreeable preferred strangers too him beautiful her son.