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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more