VIKAS YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 872 · Decided: 03-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 872 
VIKAS YADAV 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1531-1533 of2015) 
OCTOBER 03, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Sentence/Sentencing: 
Fixed term sentence - Imposition of, permissibility - Held: It 
C is within the domain of judiciary to direct that convict shall suffer 
actual incarnation for a specific period- Fixed term sentence cannot 
be said to be unauthorised in law. 
Principle of sentencing - Held: The appellate court cannot 
impose a sentence beyond the competence of the trial court - If the 
D trial court has no jurisdiction to impose a particular sentence, the 
High Court as a "Court of error" cannot pass a different harsher 
sentence. 
Sentencing in multiple offences - Concurrent or consecutive 
- In the instant case, trial court imposed life sentence and directed 
E all the sentences to run concurrent - High Court declined to enhance 
the sentence from imprisonment for life to death, but imposed a 
fixed term sentence -
Whether a person sentenced to undergo 
imprisonment for life when visited with the 'term sentence' should 
suffer them consecutively or concurrently - Held: High Court did 
F not direct that the sentence u/ss.201134 !PC shall run first and, 
thereafter, the fixed term sentence will commence - As the High 
Court has not done it, it is held inappropriate in the appeal preferred 
by the appellants to do so - Therefore, sentence imposed for the 
offence punishable ulss.201134 !PC to run concurrently with the 
sentence imposed for other offences by the High Court """' Penal 
G Code, 1860 - ss.201134. 
H 
Fixed term sentence - lmpositio11 of - Honour killing - Nitish 
Katara case - High Court imposed a fixed term sentence i.e. 25 
years for offence uls.302 !PC -Appellant's plea that the court can 
either impose sentence of imprisonment for life or sentence of death 
872 
VIKAS YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
873 
but it is not permissible to impose any other fixed term sentence -
A 
Held: The circumstantial evidence by which the crime was 
established, clearly led to one singular conclusion that the anger 
of the accused persons on the involvement of the sister with the 
deceased, was the only motive behind crime - Crime was committed 
in planned and cold blooded manner with a motive that emanated B 
from unwarranted superiority based on caste feeling that blinded 
the thought of choice available to a sister - The factum of "honour 
killing" was a seminal ground for imposing the fixed term sentence 
of twenty-five years for the offences under ss.302134 !PC on the 
two accused persons, who though highly educated had not 
cultivated the ability to abandon the depricable feelings and attitude 
C 
prevailing for centuries - Even after murdering the victim-deceased, 
the accused displayed their vengeance by destroying the body of 
the deceased which demonstrated the criminal tendency for they 
had neither respect for human life nor any concern for the dignity 
of a dead person - The brutality displayed by accused persons D 
clearly exposed depraved state of mind - Imposition of fixed term 
on appellants cannot be found fault with. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.433-A - Exercise of 
power under, scope - Held: Statutory power uls. 433-A can be 
curtailed when the Court is of the considered opinion that the fact 
situation deserves a sentence of incarnation which be for a fixed 
E 
term so that power of remission is not exercised - Sentence/ 
Sentencing. 
Constitution of India: Arts. 71and161 -Judicial review, scope 
- Held: The courts cannot embark 11pon the power to be exercised 
by the Executive Heads of the State under Art. 71 and Art.161 of the 
F 
Constitution. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Though the power exercised under Article 71 
and Article 161 of the Constitution is amenable to judicial review 
G 
.in a limited sense, yet the Court cannot exercise such power. 
Section 433-A CrPC empowers the executive to grant remission 
after expiry of 14 years. The statutory power under Section 433-
A can be curtailed when the Court is of the considered opinion 
that the fact situation deserves a sentence of incarceration which 
H 
874 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
be for a fixed term so that power of remission is not exercised. 
There are many an authority to support that there is imposition 
of fixed term sentence to curtail the power of remission and scuttle 
the applicati

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