LexSHIV GOVIND versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D £ F SIBVGOVIND v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH March 14, 1972 . [A, N. GROVER AND M. H. BEG, JJ.J 835 Crin1inal trial-Enha11cen1e11t-Enlu1nce11u!nt of sentence by appellate Court-Principles goi·erning. A question of scnteno.:: is a matter of di~•cretion. It is well settled that when cliscreti.on has been properly exercised along accepted judicial Jines, an appellate court should not interfere to the detriment of an- ac- cused person. Such interference 'Viii be justified only by strong reasons \Vhich must be disclosed on the fact of the jud_gimnt. Jn a matter "f enhancement there should not be interfen.:ncc wllen the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. Jnterfen!nc.e is only called for when: it is manifestly inadequate. [839 BJ Where the trial court after taking into acC:Ount a11 the circumstances anJ nlso the discr;!pancies in the pro=ecution ·v!Jrsion convicted the appel- lant to one year's imprisonment under s. 366, Pen:ll Code, and the High ·court in appeal, enhanced the sentence to seven years' im:i.1)risonment. HEl:D : that the High Court !>ad not noticed a number of facts duly <:onsidered by the trial court and. therefore, the exercise of the power of enhancement could not be justified. [839 OJ Bed Raj v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [19551 2 S. C.R. 583; and AlamRir & Anr. v. The State of Bihar, L19S9J Supp. I S.C.R. 464, refernd to. Nabi Bux mrd Or.r. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, A.l.R. 1972 S .C. 495, distinguished. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1972. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 25, 1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench.in Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 1969. S. K. Gambhir, for the appellant. G M. N. Shroff, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Cqurt was delivered by Beg, J, Shiv Govind, the appellant , has obtained SJieelal Leave to appeal against only that part of the Judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which his sentence of H one year's Rigorous 'Im:priSOll!llent, passed by the Additional Ses- sions' Judge, lnilote, upon " conviction under Section 366 Indian ·Penal Code, was enhanced to seven years' Rigorous Imprisonment 836. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 3 S.C.R. ' ' and a fine of Rs. 100 / -, and, in default of payment of fine, to three A months' further rigorous imprisonment. The appellant, aged about 20 yearn at the time of ihe alleged offence of 9th of August, 1969, was the youngest of three persons who were jointly charged and tried for offence$ punuhable under Section 366 and 354 I.P.C. .... The prosecution case was : Kumari Seema, a girl below 18 years of age, was offered a lift on his bicycle by the accused, Kamal Singh, aged 30 ye;irs, while she was returning to her home from her School on 9th August, 1969. The girl.hesitated.· But, B as she reposed confidence in Kamal Singh, whom she looked upon as her uncle, she accepted the offer. Kamal .Singh took Kumari Seema on his bicycle to the Regal Cinema where she part-took of C some. refreshment ordered by Kamal Singh. Meanwhile, the appellant Shiv Govind and the accused Punam, aged 26, arrived in a car. Kamal Singh asked Kumari Seema to go with the two younger men in their car. Seema refused. Theo, Kamal Singh asked her to go on his bicycle to Y ashwant Talkies. She com- plied with this request. At this Cinema, Kamal Singh deposited his Cycle at the Cycle stand. The appellant Shiv Govind and his companion Punam had followed in their car. The three men succeeded in persuading Seema, despite her initial refusal, to sit in the car and to go for a short pleasure trip in it on the definite assurance that. she will soon be reached home. . After the girl had D sat in the car she was driven to a place called Mandow, a number J: of miles away from Indore, and was made to alight at a tourist's bungalow. There two rooms were engaged by the accused. Kamal Singh occupied one of the two rooms and the girl was closeted in the other room with the appellant and his companion Punam, who.were both drunk. One of the two youngmen caught hold of the hands of the girl while the other tried to undress her with the object of raping her. Kumari Seema, at this point, F feigned sudden indisposition. so that the two youngmen had to bring her out into the gallery for fresh air. She managed to escape while the accused went inside to fetch some water for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.