THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus NANDU @ NANDUA

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 02-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
487
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
NANDU @ NANDUA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1356 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2022
[M. R. SHAH, JJ. AND KRISHNA MURARI]
Sentence/Sentencing – ss.147,148,323 and 302/34 of IPC –
Reduction of sentence by the High Court – Proper or not – The
respondent-accused along with other accused was convicted for
the offence punishable u/ss.147,148,323 and 302/34 of IPC and
was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial Court – High Court
maintained the conviction under aforesaid sections but reduced the
sentence to approximately seven years and ten months, the period
of sentence undergone by the respondent – State approached the
Supreme Court and submitted that the reduction in sentence is
contrary to s.302 IPC – On appeal, held: Though the High Court
has maintained the conviction of the respondent for the offence u/
s.302 IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to sentence
already undergone which is less than imprisonment for life, which
shall be contrary to s.302 IPC and is unsustainable – Judgment
and order of High Court set aside – Judgment and order passed by
the trial Court restored.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1356 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2019 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur in CRA No. 219 of 1995.
Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Dy. AG, Gopal Jha, Amit Sharma, Advs.
for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in
Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1995 by which the High Court has partly
allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent - accused – Nandu
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 487
487
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
@ Nandua and has reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to the
sentence already undertone while maintaining his conviction for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), the State has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Deputy
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant - State.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Trial
Court convicted the respondent - accused alongwith other accused for
the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the
IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. However, by the
impugned judgment and order, though the High Court has maintained
the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148,
323 and 302/34 of the IPC by giving benefit of right to private defence,
the High Court has thereafter interfered with the sentence and reduced
the same to the already undergone by him. At this stage, it is required to
be noted that by the time, the High Court passed the impugned judgment
and order reducing the sentence, the period of sentence undergone by
the respondent - accused was approximately seven years and ten months.
4. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that when
the High Court has maintained the conviction of the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the punishment which can be
imposed would be punishment with death or imprisonment for life and
also fine, but in any case, it shall not be less than the imprisonment for
life.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted that once an accused is held to be
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the minimum
sentence, which is imposable would be the imprisonment for life and,
therefore, any punishment/sentence less than the imprisonment for life
shall be contrary to Section 302 of the IPC. It is submitted that therefore
the High Court has committed a very serious error in reducing the sentence
to already undergone (seven years and ten months).
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court by which though the High Court has maintained the conviction
of the respondent - accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, but
the High Court has reduced the sentence to already undergone, i.e.,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
489
seven years and ten months, we are of the firm view that the same is
impermissible and unsustainable. The punishment for murder under
Section 302 IPC shall be death or imprisonment for life and fine. Therefore

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.