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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more