STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus VIKRAM DAS

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 691 · Decided: 08-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
691
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
VIKRAM DAS
(Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 08, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(1)(xi) – Trial court convicted the
respondent for an offence under s.3(1)(xi) and sentenced him to
undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.500/- – Conviction was not
disputed by the respondent before the High Court and only quantum
of punishment was disputed – High Court modified sentence of 6
months RI to the extent of sentence already undergone, however, it
enhanced the fine amount of Rs.500/- to Rs.3000/- – Appeal by
State on the ground that sentence, less than minimum sentence,
cannot be granted – Held:  Where minimum sentence is provided
for, the Court cannot impose less than the minimum sentence – The
provisions of Art.142 of the Constitution cannot be resorted to impose
sentence less than the minimum sentence – s.3(1) of the Act provides
for a punishment for a term which shall not be less than six months
but which may extend to five years and with fine –  Therefore,  High
Court could not have awarded sentence less than the minimum
sentence contemplated by the Statute – The order passed by High
Court is set aside –  The respondent  is directed to undergo the
remaining sentence imposed by the trial court for offence under
s.3(1)(xi) of the Act – Sentence/Sentencing – Constitution of India
– Art.142.
Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat (2012)
7 SCC 80 : [2012] 6 SCR 165; State v. Ratan Lal Arora
(2004) 4 SCC 590 : [2004] 1 Suppl.  SCR 631; Mohd.
Hashim v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2017) 2
SCC 198 : [2016] 9 SCR 953 – relied on
Case Law Reference
[2012] 6 SCR 165
relied on
Para 5
[2004] 1 Suppl.  SCR 631
relied on
Para 6
[2016] 9  SCR 953
relied on
Para 7
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 691
691
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
208 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated  08.05.2012 of the High
Court  of  Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 654 of
2007.
Vaibhav Srivastava, Dy. AG, Varun Chopra, AAG, Mrs.
Swarupama Chaturvedi, B. N. Dubey, Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Indira
Bhakar, Santanu Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Navjyot Singh, Anup Jain, Pranav Pathak,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The State is in appeal challenging the
Order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, sentencing the respondent for an offence
under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891 to the sentence already undergone,
but enhancing the fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3000/-.
2. The aforesaid Order of the High Court was passed in appeal
filed by the respondent herein against the Order dated 12.03.2007 passed
by the trial court whereby the respondent was convicted for the offence
under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/-.
3. In appeal, the High Court has recorded the statement of the
counsel for the respondent that he does not wish to press the appeal on
merit and confines his argument to the sentence part only. It was on
such statement; the appeal was disposed of. The relevant extract from
the order of the High Court reads as under:-
“(2)  Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted
that he does not wish to press the appeal on merit and confine his
arguments to the sentence Part only.  He has challenged only
quantum of punishment. He has submitted that, appellant has
deposited the fine amount of Rs. 500/- and has been undergone
sentence for 11 days during the course of trial…...
 1 The Act
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
693
(5)  Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.
The order of conviction passed against the appellant is maintained.
However, the sentence of six months R.I. awarded to the appellant
is modified to the extent of sentence already undergone by him.
His jail sentence is hereby set aside.  The fine of Rs. 500/- imposed
by the trial court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three
Thousand only)…….”
4. Section 3(1) of the Act provides for a punishment for a term
which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five
years and with fine.  Therefore, the only question is whether the High
Court could awa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.