Skip to main content

Tests To Be Applied While Sentencing In A Criminal Case

In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2014, STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs UDHAM AND OTHERS, appeal is directed by the appellant­State against the   final   order   dated   06.11.2012,   passed   by   the   High   Court   of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2011, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents­/accused herein and reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the period already undergone for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 452 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court observed that the reasoning of the High Court, for passing the impugned order and partly allowing the appeals   of   the   respondents/­accused   herein,   is   limited   to   one sentence. The High Court states in its order that looking to the nature of the offence, the fact that this is the first offence of the respondents and the period of sentence already undergone by them. 

Referring to the judgment of the court in Accused  ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra,  (2019) 7 SCC 1, the court held that there is no detailed analysis of   the   facts   of   the   case,   the   nature   of   the   injuries   caused,   the weapons used, the number of victims, etc. given by the High Court in   the   impugned   order.   The   High   Court   while   sentencing   the accused, has not taken into consideration the second charge proved against the respondents­accused herein, under Section 452 of IPC. Even the fact that the respondents­accused had only undergone sentence of 4 days at the time of passing of the impugned order,  brings into question the High Court pointing to the same as a reason for reducing their sentence.   As such, the order of the High Court merits interference by this Court. 

The Supreme Court further held that sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of
three   tests   viz.,   crime   test,   criminal   test   and   comparative proportionality   test.

Crime   test   involves   factors   like   extent   of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any),  role of the accused, anti­social or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability
of defense, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one from   the   deceased   group,   adequately   represented   in   the   trial,  disagreement   by   a   judge   in   the   appeal   process,   repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).  Additionally,   we   may   note   that   under   the   crime   test,
seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of material   support   or   amenity;   (iii)   extent   of   humiliation;   and   (iv) privacy breach.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even