Notification
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
    • Supreme Court
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
  • Quick Recall
    • Arms Act
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • Evidence
    • Drugs Act
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
    • Pocso
    • MCOP
    • Writ
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • 3 judge bench
  • Resources
    • Notes
      • Cr.P.C 1973
      • Crimes
    • Articles
      • P.G.Rajagopal
      • AD. RAMPRAKASH RAJAGOPAL
      • Ad. Karunanithi
      • Ad. Ravindran Raghunathan
      • James Raja
    • Digest
      • Monthly Digest
      • Weekly digest
      • Subject wise
    • Bare Acts
      • BSA 2023
      • BNS 2023
      • BNSS 2023
  • Must Read
  • Author’s note
  • Legal words
  • Civil
    • s. 91 cpc
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • My Bookmarks
Reading: Sentencing policy: Depend upon facts and circumstances
Share
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
  • Acquittal
  • Digest
  • Resources
Search
  • Latest
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
    • Supreme Court
  • Quick Recall
    • Evidence
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • Pocso
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • Digest
    • Monthly Digest
    • Weekly digest
  • Resources
    • Notes
    • Articles
  • 3 judge bench
  • Must have
  • Author’S Note
  • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Mobile APP
  • My Bookmarks

Get Notifications

Notification
Follow US
> Latest> Madras High Court> 138> Sentencing policy: Depend upon facts and circumstances

Sentencing policy: Depend upon facts and circumstances

Ramprakash Rajagopal February 19, 2023 6 Min Read
Share
Points
Arguments on quantum of punishmentFurther study

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
  • SENTENCE – COURT MUST HEAR THE QUANTUM OF SENTENCE OF ACCUSED BEFORE CONVICTION
  • Multiple Dying Declarations – No stereotypical approach can be adopted by courts
  • Class 2 – Principles on Sentencing Policy & Victim Compensation
  • Sentencing policy: Explained
  • JUDGMENTS FULL OF CITATIONS ON ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Subject Study

  • Limitation to dispose of interim maintenance under section 125(1) Cr.P.C
  • NDPS Act: Accused statement under section 67 NDPS was relied by the Trial and High Courts but inadmissible in evidence
  • A brief study of default bail under section 187 (3) BNSS (Old 167(2) Cr.P.C)
  • Suicide: No dowry demand: A moral conviction regarding the guilt of an individual has no place in criminal jurisprudence
  • Whether there is preponderance of probabilities in PMLA case?
  • Powers of Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C to direct the SHO to investigation
  • Section 304A IPC: Awarding sentence under section 304 A IPC is not mandatory
  • Murder intention confirmed: If the accused has no intention, then he could not have gone into his house and brought billhook to assault the accused

Further Study

Section 27: Recovery not admissible: Recovery is from open space after one month no independent witnesses examined though available

Sentencing: Court must hear the quantum of sentence of accused before conviction

Section 362 Cr.P.C: section 362 Cr.P.C would not prohibit the court to modify the bail order

Cr.P.C., 1973. Notes no.1: Understanding the Police Report, Investigation, and Court’s Duties in Criminal Cases

Section 389(1) Cr.P.C: Allowing a convicted parliamentarian to attend parliamentary proceedings – Majority view (two judges) suspended the conviction; Minority view (single judge) judgment is denied to stayed the conviction by upheld the H.C

TAGGED:cr.p.cno sentencing policyquantum of sentencesection1sentencesentencing policysupreme court
Previous Article If the accused convicted in two different cases then he is not entitled for benefit of concurrent sentencing under section 427 Cr.P.C
Next Article Bail: Reasoning order is necessary: If cryptic order informant has right to assail before a higher forum
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Study

dying declaration

Once dying declaration is proved then failure to prove other facts is not relevant at all

Ramprakash Rajagopal March 7, 2025
Company is the drawer of the cheque and the authorised signatory is merely a limb that signs the cheque
Complainants are victim in cheque cases and they may file appeal against acquittal under section 372 Cr.P.C itself without seeking special leave under section 378(4) Cr.P.C
Defamation Quash: No averments in the complaint to establish as to how appellant-2 was responsible for controlling the contents of the newspaper publication
Sanction not necessary for the public servants who have conspired and issued patta in favour of some other person other than the property owner

Related Study

Procedure: Sample collection: Assistant Director has no power to seize the sample of meat under Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle preservation Act 1964
February 28, 2024
Transfer of malice: Act of accused was nothing but murder under section 302 IPC r/w section 301 IPC
February 8, 2025
Acquittal: Section 306/114 IPC: Unless the accused admitted the handwriting report the expert should be examined to prove the handwriting opinion report
March 19, 2025
POCSO COMPROMISE QUASH: Power under section 482 Cr. P.C could not be used to quash heinous offences based on compromise which has a serious impact on society
November 21, 2024
S.307 IPC not attracted sentence reduced
April 14, 2023

About

Section1.in is all about the legal updates in Criminal and Corporate Laws. This website also gives opportunity to publish your (readers/users) articles subject to the condition of being edited (only if necessary) by the team of Advocates. Kindly send your articles to paperpageindia@gmail.com or WhatsApp to +919361570190.
  • Quick Links
  • Team
  • Terms
  • Cancellation Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • My Bookmarks

section1.in is powered by Paperpage.             © Paperpage Internet Services.                       All Rights Reserved.

Subscribe Newsletter for free

Subscribe to our newsletter to get judgments instantly!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

ஓர்ந்துகண் ணோடாது இறைபுரிந்து யார்மாட்டும் தேர்ந்துசெய் வஃதே முறை [541].

_திருவள்ளுவர்
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?