MOHD. FIROZ versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 1027 · Decided: 21-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1027
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1027
1027
MOHD. FIROZ
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Review Petition (Crl.) No. 282 of 2022)
In
(Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2019)
OCTOBER 21, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Review – Clarification sought on quantum of sentence – In
judgment dated 19.04.2022 for which review is sought, the
petitioner-accused was held guilty and punished for the offences
was under ss.376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) and under s.376(A) of IPC as
also under s.5 (i) and s.5 (m) read with s.6 of the POCSO Act – In
judgment dated 19.04.2022, the Court, while commuting the sentence
of death for the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence
punishable under s.302 of IPC, and while imposing sentence to
undergo imprisonment for 20 years and not imprisonment for the
remainder of his natural life for the offence under s.376A, IPC
tried to balance the scales of retributive justice and restorative
justice – If the sentence of life imprisonment was imposed by the
Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court, and also by this
Court, then the life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for the
remainder of the petitioner’s (original appellant’s) natural life –
The Court had consciously imposed the sentence of 20 years for
the offence under s.376A – Therefore appellant-petitioner shall
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years for the
offence – The sentence imposed for the offence under ss.376(2)(i)
and 376(2)(m) of IPC and for the offence under ss.5(i) and 5(m)
read with s.6 of the POCSO Act is modified, so as to commensurate
the said sentences with the sentence imposed for the offence under
s.376(A) of IPC, and accordingly sentence is imposed directing the
petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty years
instead of life imprisonment for the said offences – The judgment
and order dated 19.04.2022 is accordingly corrected and modified
to that extent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1028
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition
(Crl.) No. 282 of 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2019.
[From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2014 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.2920 of
2013 and Criminal Reference No. 9 of 2013]
B. H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv., (AC), Ms. Trisha Chandran, Bhavesh
Seth, Ms. Harini Raghupathy, Ramnesh Kumar Sahu, Satya Mitra, Advs.
for the Petitioner.
P. V. Yogeshwaran, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. Ayushi Mittal,
Vipul Abhishek, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was passed by
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The instant application has been filed by the applicant-appellant
seeking the following prayers:
(a)
Pass an order clarifying that pursuant to the Judgment of
this Hon’ble Court dated 19.04.2022 in Criminal Appeal
No.612 of 2018, the sentence to be served by the Applicant
is life imprisonment simplicitor for the offence under Section
302, 5(m),(i) and 6 of the Protection of Children under
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), imprisonment for a
term of 20 years for the offence under Section 376A, IPC,
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under
Section 366, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for
the offence under Section 363, IPC.
(b)
Pass an order clarifying that the sentence imposed by the
Ld. Sessions Judge, Seoni under Sections 376(2)(m) and
376(2)(i), IPC has been substituted/subsumed by this
Hon’ble Court in Judgment dated 19.04.2022 in Criminal
Appeal 612 of 2018 by imposing a sentence of imprisonment
for 20 years under Section 376A, IPC.
(c)
Pass an order clarifying that the sentence to be served by
the applicant for the offence under Sections 5(m) and (i), 6,
POCSO is life imprisonment and not life imprisonment for
the reminder of natural life.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1029
(d)
Pass an order directing the Ld. Sessions Judge Seoni to
modify the order of supersession in accordance with the
Prayers A to C.
(e)
Pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties
passed the following order on 19.10.2022:
“Instant Miscellaneous Application is treated as Review
Petition and be registered as one by the Registry.
Oral hearing in the matter is permitted.
Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, learned Senior Advocate, who has been
assisting this Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the
accused submits that-
(A)
In paragraph 43 of the Order, this Court (i) modified
the senten
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.