LexSTATE OF M.P. versus MEHTAAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
(2015] 1 S.C.R. 1116
STATE OF M.P.
v.
MEHTAAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2015)
FEBRUARY 13, 2015
[T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.357-A -
C Conviction u/s. 304A and 337 /PC - Sentence of 1 year and
of 3 months for respective offences - Reduced by High Court
to the period already undergone i.e. 10 days - On appeal,
held: It is duty of Court to award just sentence - It is also duty
of the Court to consider the aspect of rehabilitating the victim
o - Apart from the sentence, compensation is required to be
paid by the accused - On failure of accused to pay the same,
State is required to award the compensation - High Court not
justified in reducing the sentence - Accused directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and in default would undergo RI
E for 6 months - State directed to pay interim compensation of
3 /akhs and if the accused fails to pay the compensation, the
State to pay further amount of Rs. 2 /akhs towards the
compensation - Setnence/Sentencing - Penal Code, 1860
-
SS. 304A and 337.
F
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is the duty of the Court to award just
sentence to a convict against whom charge is proved.
G While every mitigating or aggravating circumstance may
be given due weight, mechanical reduction of sentence
to the period already undergone cannot be appreciated.
Sentence has to be fair not only to the accused but also
to the victim and the society. It is also the duty of the court
H
1116
'
STATE OF M.P. v. MEHTAAB
1117
to duly consider the aspect of rehabilitating the victim.
A
Apart from the sentence and fine/compensation to be
paid by the accused, the Court has to award
compensation by the State under Section 357 A when the
accused is not in a position to pay fair compensation.
[Para 8] [1120-C-D, E-F]
B
2. The respondent having been found guilty of
causing death by his negligence, the High Court was not
justified in reducing the sentence of imprisonment to 10
days without awarding any compensation to the heirs of c
the deceased. The order of the High Court can be upheld
only with the modification that the accused will pay
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the heirs of the deceased
within six months. In default, he will undergo RI for six
months. The compensation of Rs.2 lakhs is being fixed
D
having regard to the limited financial resources of the
accused but the said compensation may .riot be adequate
for the heirs of the deceased. In such situation, in addition
to the compensation to be paid by the accused, the State
can be required to pay compensation under Section 357-
E
A Cr.P.C. It will be appropriate, in the interests of justice,
to award interim compensation of Rs.3 lakhs u/s. 357-A
payable out of the funds available/to be made available
~y the State Government with the District Legal Services,
Authority. In case, the accused does not pay the
compensation, the State will pay the entire amount of
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs within three months after
expiry of the time granted to the accused. [Para 1 O] [1121-
H; 1122-A-D, E-F]
Suresh vs. ~tate of Haryana 2015 (2) SCC 227 - relied
on.
Case Law Reference:
2015 (2) sec 221
relied on
Para a
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 1 S.C.R.
A
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 290 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2012 of the
High Court of Ma~hya Pradesh, Judicature at Jabalpur Bench
B at Gwalior in Crl. .Revision No. 72 of 2007.
C. 0. Singh, Sakshi Kakkar for the Appellant.
Pragati Neekhra for the Respondent.
C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya
0
Pradesh against judgment and order dated 6th November,
2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
in Criminal Revision No. 72 of 2007 reducing the sentence
awarded to the respondent under Section 304A of the Indian
Penal Code ("IPC") from RI for one year and under Section 337
E IPC from RI for three months to RI for 10 days which was the
period already undergone by him.
3. On 22nd November, 1997, the deceased Sushila Bai
wife of PW 4 Ram Charan along with her husband was returning
F from Village Ragho Garh to their home in village Kudhaidher.
The respondent accused had drawn electricity wire from the
pole upto his field which was not visible in the darkness. Ram
Charan got trapped in thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.