Tag: Criminal Case

PAKALA NARAYAN SWAMI V. EMPEROR AIR 1939

INTRODUCTION

Examination of accused defined under section161 Cr.PC is prevalently known as interrogation. The object of examination of witness u/s.161 CrPC is to generate the evidence before the court at the time of trial as per section 162. Further, these statements are beneficial for the court for framing the charge. Before trial commences copies of these statements recorded by the police should be delivered to accused without costing any charge. Confession is deliberate admission of fault by the accused person.

The term statement is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure but its dictionary meaning is the act of stating or reciting. Section 161 and 162, deals with the oral examination of witnesses by police, the record to be made of the statements and their use subsequently.  These sections authorize the police to examine witnesses during the course of an investigation. Any person who is supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case maybe examined orally and such statement can be used in court as an evidence after fulfilling required conditions. The words “any person” used in Section 161 (1) also include a person who maybe accused of the crime and suspects. This is held by the Privy Council in the case:  Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor.[1]

ABOUT THE CASE LAW

COURT OF JUSTICE: Bombay High Court

NAME: Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor

DECIDED ON: 19 January, 1939

CITATION: (1939) 41 BOMLR 428

BENCH OF JUDGES:  Justice Atkin, Justice G Rankin, Justice Porter, Justice Thankerton, Justice Wright

FACTS:

An appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Patna who affirmed the decision of the Sessions Judge at Berhampur who had convicted the appellant of the murder of one Kuree Nukaraju and sentenced him to death. The accused, his wife, his wife’s brother, and his clerk living at his house were charged with the murder before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chatrapur, in May and June, 1937. After hearing the evidence the examining Magistrate discharged all the accused holding that there was no sufficient evidence to support the charge. Thereupon the Sessions Judge, Berhampur, exercising his powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, called upon the accused to show cause why they should not be committed for trial, and in July, 1937, ordered the present accused and his wife to be committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial for offences under sections of the Indian Penal Code 120B (conspiring to murder) 302 (murder) and 201 (causing evidence of an offence to disappear). At the trial the Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant’s wife of all the charges but convicted the appellant of murder and sentenced him to death. The appeal is based upon the admission of certain evidence said to be made inadmissible by provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act; and is further maintained upon the contention that whether the disputed evidence be admitted or not, and certainly if it ought to have been rejected, there is no evidence sufficient to support this conviction.[2]

It will be observed that “the circumstances” are of the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant. In the present case the cause of the deceased’s death comes into question. The transaction is one in which the deceased was murdered on March 21, or March 22, and his body was found in a trunk proved to be bought on behalf of the accused. The statement made by the deceased on March 20 or 21 that he was setting out to the place where the accused lived, and to meet a person, the wife of the accused, who lived in the accused’s house, appears clearly to be a statement as to some of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. The statement was rightly admitted.

ISSUE:

It is now necessary to discuss the question whether the alleged statement of the accused to the police before arrest was protected by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides [Sub-section (1)] :

No statement made by any person to a police-officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police-diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose (save as hereinafter provided) at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made.

RELEVANT INFORMATION:

After giving powers to certain police officers to investigate certain crimes, the Code proceeds in:

Section 160, which gives power to any police officer making an investigation by an order in writing is required to take the attendance before him of persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case.

Section 161, allows examination of witness by police.

SCOPE OF SEC.161 ( Cr.PC) STATEMENTS:

Recording of Statements of Witnesses: The Police Officer making an investigation should himself customarily inspect any person and record his statement during that investigation. However, in the cases where it is unfeasible, the Head Constable or the writer connected with the Police Station may record the statements of witnesses. In that case both the recording officer and the investigating officer should sign the statement recorded under section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Under this section, administering oath or affirmation is not obligatory in an examination.

Here expression ‘any person’ includes accused also. Therefore, persons to be examined include whosoever may subsequently be accused of the offence in respect of which the investigation is made by the police officer. The person examined in the course of a police investigation is obliged to answer all questions put to him “other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.” Accused has got right to remain silent as he got ‘right against self incrimination’ as per S.161 (2) CrPC and Article 20 (3) of Indian Constitution. The person questioned is legally bound to state the truth. However, if a witness examined by the police does not give answers to the questions, he can be punishable u/s.179 IPC or if he gives false information, he can be punished u/s.193 IPC.

The statements of all witnesses (which are familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case and they may have to be cited as witnesses in the court) are desirable to be reduced into writing. The statement of each witness should be recorded separately. Statements recorded by Police Officers should not be in the indirect form of speech, as per Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. The language of Sec.162 Cr.P.C and S.145 of Evidence Act clearly point outs that the writing should be describable as a statement of the witness himself also it should be as nearly as possible, a complete record of what he has said. Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C read together with Sec.173 (3) Cr.P.C clearly indicates that separate statements of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses should be recorded and copies thereof must be given to the accused before the instigation of the inquiry.

Evidentiary Value of statements recorded The statements recorded by the police u/s.161 CrPC are not evidence for prosecution. They can be used by the defense for oppose the prosecution witnesses. However, when the prosecution witness turns hostile with the permission of court, the Public Prosecutor can cross-examine that witness by using his Sec.161 statements to determine contradiction. But when Sec.161 statements falls u/s.27 or u/s.32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act, then those statements can be used by prosecution as an evidence. Sec.161 statements are not substantive evidence. Statement of injured witness was recorded as dying declaration but he survived, then such statement has to be considered as Sec.161 statements. But Sec. 161 statements can be treated as dying declaration if that person dies. Sec.161 statements cannot be used against the accused in criminal cases. They shall not be used for any purpose except to contradict a witness in the manner prescribed in the proviso to Sec. 162 (1). Under Sec.161 & Sec.162 Cr.P.C the Witness is not confronted with the statement. The Court cannot subsequently use the statement even for drawing any adverse impression against the witness. If thumb impression or signature is not obtained, such statements are fallacious. Signing of statement merely puts the Court on prudence and may necessitate in depth inspection of the evidence, but the evidence on this account cannot be rejected outright. Hindrance in examination of witnesses by police u/s.161 CrPC, if properly explained, is not lethal to the prosecution case

[1] AIR 1939 PC 47

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/516808/

ANALYSIS OF FALSE CONFESSION

WHAT IS A CONFESSION?

Confession doesn’t carry any definite meaning in definition given by ‘Sir James Fitzjames Stephen’ in his ‘A Digest of the Law of Evidence’. According to him, “a confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime”. Thus, in Stephen’s definition an admission amounts to confession if the person accused or incriminated, firstly, states that he committed the crime or secondly, makes a statement by which he does not clearly admit the guilt, yet from the statement some inference maybe drawn that he might have committed the crime. But this definition was unaccepted by jurists.

The confession is nowhere defined in the Indian Evidence Act but the interpretation of admission given under provisions of Section 17 of IEA also applies to confession in an alike method, i.e. provisions for confession occur under the heading of admission. Section 17 signifies that, an admission is a statement, [oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.

While ‘statement’ is a genus, ‘admission’ is a species of statement and ‘confession’ is a species of admission.  A confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made is an important piece of evidence and is an ‘efficacious proof of guilt’. If it is found that the confession was made and was free, voluntary and genuine, there would remain nothing to be done by the prosecution to secure conviction.

Case Laws:

Pakala Narayan Swami V. Emperor

Lord Atkin examined and held that “A confession must either be admitted in the context of any offence or in relation with any substantial facts which inaugurate the offence with criminal proceedings. And an admission of serious wrongdoing, even conclusively incriminating fact is not itself a confession”.

Palvinder Kaur V. State of Punjab

The Supreme Court elevated the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case and substantiated their arguments over two reasoning- Firstly, the definition of confession only comes to endure when the statements conferring the admission that he is either liable for any offence or the admission is probating all the facts which establish the offence. Secondly, when the statement has distinctive qualities and contains such a mixture of confessional statements which conclude to the discharge of the person making the confession, then such statements doesn’t amount to a confession.

WHAT IS A FALSE CONFESSION?

Individuals at large are condemned for murders, assaults and homicides yet one may have been barely sentenced for the offence he really didn’t commit. It may sound bizarre but this practice is widespread. Evidence generated through a confession is effective but erroneous.

A false confession is a statement which claims an admission of guilt for commission of crime by a person who hasn’t committed it. In other words, false confession is acceptance of culpability for an offence against the law whereby confessor is not responsible for it. Such a confession which is bogus can be coaxed through coercion, or under mental duress, or due to incompetency of accused. A false confession can said to be an involuntary statement proving guilt for a crime under threat or mental constraint such as anxiety.

In spite of exceptional preparation done for how to behave in direct meetings with an accused person, police can’t separate better than a layman whether suspects are lying or coming clean in front of them. Suspects in confinement routinely give up their self-defensive rights to stay shut and to counsel especially if they are blameless. This is a reason why law has created a series of rules in Indian Evidence Act,1872 under sections 24 to 26 which states confessions when irrelevant or involuntary confessions.

Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act excludes confessions caused by certain inducements, threats and promises. Section 25 deals with confessions made by an accused and excludes confession made to police officer as those confessions are considered involuntary as police officer to secure confession uses shortcut method by putting the arrested person into third degree so that arrested person confesses. Section 26 prohibits proof against any person of a confession made by him in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate.

CAUSES OF FALSE CONFESSIONS:

Police Interrogation:

Some of the tactics taught to, and then used by, police officers include:

1) The use of false evidence to cause a suspect to believe that there is enough evidence to convict them without a confession

2) Using different psychological tactics based on whether the suspect is considered an “emotional” or “non-emotional” suspect

3) Using bait questions such as, “Why would we find your fingerprints at the crime scene?”

4) Leading a suspect to accept that it is in their best interest to give a confession by convincing him/her that the benefits of confessing are relatively high while the costs are relatively low

 5) Accuse the suspect as if they already have substantial evidence against them by using props such as large case files, fingerprint cards, and video tapes, etc.

 6) Causing a suspect to believe that a co-suspect has already confessed and implicated them in the crime or that a witness has seen and identified them.

Serious Illness and Substance Abuse:

In excess of 75% of those with mental illness who proffer a false confession also have a co-occurring substance abuse problem. In fact, many of these mentally ill individuals are using illicit drugs at the time of their false confessions to “self-medicate” being that they are not taking their prescription medications.

KINDS OF FALSE CONFESSIONS:

VOLUNTARY FALSE CONFESSION

There are a variety of explanations why people volunteer to make false confessions — such as a pathological need for attention particularly in high-profile incidents mentioned in the news and media; a conscious or involuntary tendency for self-punishment to expiate feelings of remorse for past transgressions; an inability to differentiate fact from fiction due to a failure in perception control, a typical characteristic of serious mental illness; and a desire to shield the actual perpetrator.

COMPLIANT FALSE CONFESSIONS

Contrary to voluntary false confessions, compliant false confessions are those in which suspects are induced to confess to a crime they did not commit through interrogation. In such situations, the defendant responds with a plea demand to exit from a difficult situation, prevent penalty, or receive a conditional or possible reward.

INTERNALIZED FALSE CONFESSIONS

In the third type of false confession, innocent but pliable suspects, told that there is undoubted evidence of their involvement comes to cede not only in their behaviour, but also to believe that they may have committed the crime in subject and often false memories are fabricated in the process. Also, many fake cases surrounding confession involve the use and apparent manipulation of fabricated evidence ruse.

CASE LAW:

Birey Singh vs. State

Under the Evidence Act the confession can only be taken into consideration as against the others. A rule of caution has been adopted by all Courts that A should not be convicted on the basis of B’s confession without material corroboration. In the face of the distinct possibility that the others might have been falsely implicated, it would not be correct to convict them without material corroboration. Unless the Court is in a position to say that the others have not been falsely named in the confession, there would always remain a doubt which would prevent the conviction of the others. If they are to be convicted, that doubt must be removed by the production of evidence indicating the connection of the others with the crime. One cannot be said to be one’s own enemy, and one would have no reason to accuse own self falsely of a crime. One may not lose anything by implicating others falsely, but the same cannot be said of accusing own self falsely.

CONCLUSION

Confessions have always been perceived as the ultimate afterword when a case is on the edge of being completed. They are recognized as no less than a spotless piece of evidence for hurling the suspect in the detention centre for staying years. Confessions play a great role in shaping the judgment. However, such a conjecture is not up to the mark always. False confessions substantiate the last sentence. Confessing to an offence one didn’t commit is unintelligent and one will get inquisitive to know the answer. The answer can be seen as an amalgam of psychology and law. It can be best described as a psychological product leading to legal corollary with a deleterious impact on the victims. False confessions can be seen as a subclass of wrongful conviction.

[1] (1939) 41 BOMLR 428

[2] https://blog.ipleaders.in/confessions-under-the-indian-evidence-act/

[3] Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1952

[4] AIR 1953 All 785

[5]https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/901939/

SC Explains Tests To Be Applied While Sentencing In A Criminal Case

It must be mentioned right at the outset that the Supreme Court most recently on October 22, 2019, in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Udham and others in Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 2014 has briefly explained the three tests to be applied while sentencing in a criminal case. It has laid down in no uncertain terms without mincing any words that, “The aspect of sentencing should not be taken for granted, as this part of Criminal Justice System has determinative impact on the society.” Very rightly so!

                                            To start with, this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment authored by Justice NV Ramana for himself, Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi sets the dice rolling by first and foremost stating in para 1 that, “The present appeal is directed by the appellant-State against the final order dated 06.11.2012, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2011, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents-accused herein and reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the period already undergone for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 452 of the IPC.”

                                        While presenting the prosecution version, it is then stated in para 2 that, “The prosecution case is that the complaint lodged a report on 15.04.2008 that at around 9 p.m., while he was sitting inside his house with three other people, the respondents-accused barged in, carrying weapons. More specifically, respondent nos. 1 and 3 were carrying axes, while respondent nos. 2 and 4 were carrying sticks. The respondents-accused asked the complainant why he had not kept his cow tied, and subsequently, on respondent no. 4’s exhortation, the respondents-accused attacked the complainant and the others present at that time resulting in various injuries to them. Respondents-accused then allegedly threatened the complainant that if he did not keep his cow confined, he would be killed.”

                                         To put things in perspective, it is then elaborated upon in para 3 while putting across what the Trial Court ruled upon that, “The Trial Court tried the respondents-accused and ultimately convicted them for the offences under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as the offence under Section 452 of IPC. The respondents-accused were sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty Only) each for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with a further fine of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty Only) each for the offence under Section 452 of IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. All sentences were made to run concurrently by the Trial Court.”

                                 As a corollary, what follows next is illustrated in para 4 that, “Being aggrieved, the respondents-accused filed an appeal before the High Court, challenging only the quantum of sentence imposed on them by the Trial Court. Vide impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them, which was a period of 4 days, while enhancing the fine amount imposed upon them by Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) each. The respondents-accused were directed to deposit the enhanced fine within a period of 30 days, failing which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.”

                                             As it turned out, para 5 then states that, “Aggrieved by the impugned order, the State has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the High Court reducing the sentence awarded to the respondents-accused. The learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court erred in not considering the gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the respondents-accused had undergone imprisonment of only 4 days.”

                                 Simply put, para 6 then enumerates that, “On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused submitted that the High Court has correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in passing the impugned order, and therefore, the same does not merit any interference from this Court.”

                                   After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as mentioned in para 7, it is then envisaged in para 8 that, “At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the reasoning of the High Court, for passing the impugned order and partly allowing the appeals of the respondents-accused herein, is limited to one sentence. The High Court states in its order that looking to the nature of the offence, the fact that this is the first offence of the respondents and the period of sentence already undergone by them, it is passing the impugned order.”

                             It would be of immense significance to note what is then stated so eloquently, elegantly and effectively in para 9 that, “At this stage the observations of this Court in Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 1, in which two of us were part of the Bench, with respect to sentencing in India are relevant here-

49. Sentencing is appropriate allocation of criminal sanctions, which is mostly given by the judicial branch. [Nicola Padfield, Rod Morgan and Mike Maguire, “Out of Court, Out of Sight? Criminal Sanctions and No Judicial Decision-making”, The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (5th Edn.).] This process occurring at the end of a trial still has a large impact on the efficacy of a criminal justice system. It is established that sentencing is a socio-legal process, wherein a Judge finds an appropriate punishment for the accused considering factual circumstances and equities. In light of the fact that the legislature provided for discretion to the Judges to give punishment, it becomes important to exercise the same in a principled manner. We need to appreciate that a strict fixed punishment approach in sentencing cannot be acceptable, as the Judge needs to have sufficient discretion as well.

50. Before analysing this case, we need to address the issue of the impact of reasoning in the sentencing process. The reasoning of the trial court acts as a link between the general level of sentence for the offence committed and to the facts and circumstances. The trial court is obligated to give reasons for the imposition of sentence, as firstly, it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that the adjudicators must provide reasons for reaching the decision and secondly, the reasons assume more importance as the liberty of the accused is subject to the aforesaid reasoning. Further, the appellate court is better enabled to assess the correctness of the quantum of punishment challenged, if the trial court has justified the same with reasons…”

                                                       (emphasis supplied)”   

                                         While pooh-poohing the manner followed by the High Court in sentencing the accused, it is then pointed out in para 10 that, “In the present case, it is clear that there is no detailed analysis of the facts of the case, the nature of the injuries caused, the weapons used, the number of victims, etc. given by the High Court in the impugned order. The High Court while sentencing the accused, has not taken into consideration the second charge proved against the respondents-accused herein, under Section 452 of IPC. Even the fact that the respondents-accused had only undergone sentence of 4 days at the time of passing of the impugned order, brings into question the High Court pointing to the same as a reason for reducing their sentence. As such, the order of the High Court merits interference by this Court.”

                                     While underscoring the invaluable importance of the sentencing policy, para 11 then postulates that, “We are of the opinion that a large number of cases are being filed before this Court, due to insufficient or wrong sentencing undertaken by the Courts below. We have time and again cautioned against the cavalier manner in which sentencing is dealt in certain cases. There is no gainsaying that the aspect of sentencing should not be taken for granted, as this part of Criminal Justice System has determinative impact on the society. In light of the same, we are of the opinion that we need to provide further clarity on the same.”  

                                         While continuing in the same vein, it is then very rightly articulated on sentencing policy in para 12 that, “Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, anti-social or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defense, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial, disagreement by a judge in the appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).”

                                  Not stopping here, it is then stipulated in para 13 that, “Additionally, we may note that under the crime test, seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv) privacy breach.”

                               Of course, it is then rightly elaborated upon in para 14 that, “Coming to the appropriate sentence which is to be imposed on the respondents-accused in this case, the facts of this case need closer scrutiny. The respondents-accused entered the house of the complainant, attacked the others present with axes and with sticks. Four people, including the complainant, were injured. The injuries caused were incised wounds on the hands and backs of the victims, an incised wound next to the ear of one of the victims and bruising, etc. The respondents-accused were convicted for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, or of imprisonment of a term which may extend to ten years, and fine. They were also convicted under Section 452 of IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years along with fine.”

                               It cannot be lost on us that it is then also rightly pointed out in para 15 that, “The respondents-accused herein were males of age 33 years, 33 years, 28 years and 70 years respectively at the time of the incident. The main allegation as against the respondent nos. 1 and 3 is that they had used an axe to attack the victim. In this scuffle there is no dispute that some of the respondent-accused herein were also injured profusely. Further the motivation seems to be that the cow belonging to the victims had entered the household of the accused and the respondent no. 1 with his co-accused are proved to be the aggressor herein. From the perusal of the record, the injuries on some of the victims are not specifically attributed. The respondent group was numerically matched with that of the victims and there were two respondents-accused within the group carrying lathis. The bodily integrity was compromised as a result of the injury caused, but there was no evidence led to indicate any permanent establishments of any part. The scope of intrusion of privacy due to the assault is also minimal. There was no material destruction involved in the crime.”  

                                 To put it succinctly, it is then observed in para 16 that, “In this context, we need to note that the facts of the case highlighted above, however, need to be balanced with the fact that this was the first offence committed by the respondents-accused and that the motive, which is stated to be trivial. There is a requirement to treat the crime committed herein differently than other objectionable situations such as police atrocities etc. [refer to Yashwant v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 4067]. Having regard to the fact that the occurrence of the crime is of the year 2008 and the respondents-accused have been, in a way, only ordered to undergo four days of jail term with a fine of Rs 1,500/-, we need to enhance the same to commensurate with the guilt of the respondents-accused.”

                            Going ahead, it is then observed in para 17 that, “Comparatively, having perused certain precedents of this Court, we are of the considered opinion and accordingly direct that for the commission of the offence under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand Only)  each within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which they are to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence under Section 452 of IPC, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand Only) each within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which they are to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.”

                                      Furthermore, it is then held in para 18 that, “For the offence under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, the respondent no. 4, who is presently aged around 80 years, is sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which he is to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence under Section 452 of IPC, respondent no. 4 is sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) within a period of 1 month, on default of payment of which he is to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month.”

                                       Coming to the last two paras, para 19 holds that, “The above sentences are to run concurrently. Further, the respondents are directed to be taken into custody forthwith, to serve out their remaining sentence, as imposed hereinabove.” Lastly, the last para 20 concludes by holding that, “Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is modified in the afore-stated terms.”

                                     On a concluding note, it may well be said that it is a very key judgment from the sentencing perspective in criminal cases as it lays down the tests to be applied in such cases which we have already discussed quite elaborately in various paras stated above of this noteworthy judgment! The three-Judge Bench of Apex Court very rightly cautions the High Courts and all the other lower courts that the aspect of sentencing should not be taken for granted, as this part of Criminal Justice System has determinative impact on the society! So the Judges should weigh carefully all the various factors which can tilt the sentencing before arriving at any decision!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.