LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MOHAMMAD MUSLIM TAGALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 902
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
MOHAMMAD MUSLIM TAGALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 2014)
OCTOBER 13, 2014
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.433 - Power of
appropriate government to commute sentence - Conviction
C
by trial court u/ss.363, 366A, 376 - Respondent-convict's
case not argued on merits in High Court - Only plea on behalf
of convict that the concerned authorities be directed to give
benefit of s.433 - Public Prosecutor did not oppose the said
prayer - High Court directed concerned authorities to give
o benefit of s.433 to the convict and dispose of the appeal -
Challenged on the ground that the offence committed by the
convict was grave and therefore, High Court erred in giving a
direction to the authorities to give benefit of s.433 to the
convict - Held: When the appropriate Government commutes
E
the sentence, it does so in exercise of its sovereign powers -
The court cannot direct the appropriate Government to
exercise its sovereign powers - Court can merely give a
direction to the appropriate Government to consider the case
for commutation of sentence and nothing more - In the instant
F
case, the benefit of s.433 was not given and the convict was
released from jail after serving the sentence imposed on him
- Since no steps were taken by the concerned authorities to
give the respondent benefit u/s. 433, the appeal has actually
become infructuous - The casual manner in which Public
Prosecutor made concession in High Court condemned -
G Judicial deprecation.
Disposing of the appeal as infructous, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court erred in giving a direction
H
902
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MOHAMMAD MUSLIM
903
TAGALA
to the State Government to commute the sentence of the
A
respondent. It could have only directed the State
Government to consid~r the respondent's case for
commutation of sentence. Unfortunately, the High Court
merely noted the request made by the counsel for the
respondent and concession made by the State counsel.
B
If the High Court felt that the prosecution case was
extremely weak and the respondent deserved to be
acquitted, it should have discussed the evidence and
acquitted him. But, it could not have adopted such a
course. The manner in which the Public Prosecutor made C
a concession in the High Court is condemned. Firstly, the
offence is grave and in such grave offence, the Public
Prosecutor ought not to have made a concession that the
court should direct the Government to commute the
sentence. Besides, the Public Prosecutor made a
concession without examining the legal position. The D
Public Prosecutor plays a very important role in a criminal
case. It is distressing that in such a serious case, the
Public Prosecutor showed such a casual approach.
[Paras 12, 13] [908-D-H; 909-A-B]
Delhi Administration (now NCT of Delhi) v. Manohar Lal
(2002) 7 SCC 222: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 1; State of Punjab
v. Kesar Singh (1996) 5 SCC 495: 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR
787; State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj (2003) 7 SCC
E
121: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 235 - relied on.
F
Case Law Reference:
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 1
relied on
1996 (3) ,Suppl. SCR 787
relied on
2003 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 235
relied on
Para 10
Para 10
Para 11
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
\
No. 2184 of 2014.
G
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 10 S.C.R.
A
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2013 in
. 8
SBCRA No. 639 of 2008 of the High Court of Rajasthan at
Jaipur.
Milind Kumar for the Appellant.
John Mathew (a.c.) for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Leave
C
granted.
2. The respondent was tried along with two others viz.
Sabena and Mohd. Daud by the Additional District & Sessions
Judge (Fast Track}, Sikkar, Rajasthan in Sessions Case No.24
of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376,
D
307 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code ("the
IPC"). Learned Sessions Judge, Sikkar by judgment and order
dated 11/6/2008 acquitted Sabena and Mohd. Daud, of all the
charges. The respondent was convicted for offence punishable
under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for
E
three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo
SI for six months. He was also convicted under Section 366A
of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay
a fine of Rs.2,000/-, inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.