Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
NABI BUX & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1971
BENCH:
RAY, A.N.
BENCH:
RAY, A.N.
PALEKAR, D.G.
CITATION:
1972 AIR 495 1972 SCR (2) 353
1972 SCC (1) 7
CITATOR INFO :
D 1972 SC1823 (11)
ACT:
Sentence--Enhanced by High Court under s. 423(1A) Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898--This Court in appeal will not
interfere unless sentence is shown to be unjust or harsh.
HEADNOTE:
For an offence under s. 325 read with s. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code the appellants were sentenced by the Sessions
Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each,
apart from fine. The High Court in exercise of powers under
s. 423(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enhanced the
sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years On the
question whether this Court should, in the circumstances of
the case, interfere with the order of the High Court
enhancing the sentence,
HELD : It could not be said that- the High Court was not
justified in holding that in view of the severity of the
injuries caused to one of the victims the sentence passed by
the trial court was lenient. It would be wrong to interfere
with the sentence passed by the High Court when it was not
shown to be unjust or harsh. [317 E]
Surta & Ors. v. State of Haryana, C.A. No. 225/70 dt. 12-2-
1971, referred to-.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 63 of
1971.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
December 10, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore
Bench in Cr. Appeal No. 94 of 1970.
Nur-ud-din Ahmed and U. P. Singh, for the, appellants.
R. P. Kapur for I. N. Shroff for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave limited only to
the question whether the High Court was justified in
enhancing the sentences.
The appellants Nabi Bux, Noor Mohammad and Ismail Khan were
tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh on charges
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code for attempting to commit the murder of Bapu in
furtherance of their common intention and also under section
325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for
causing grievous hurt to Chunia in furtherance of their
common intention. The appellants were acquitted on the
charge under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They
were convicted on two charges under section 325/34 of the
Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to
317
Bapu and Chunia. They were sentenced to undergo imprison-
ment for six months each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each with
six months, rigorous imprisonment in default.
The High Court on appeal maintained the conviction and in
exercise of powers under section 423 (1A) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure enhanced the sentence to rigorous
imprisonment for two years. The High Court. said that the
learned trial Judge had taken a lenient view in awarding the
sentences to the appellants. Bapu who was one of the
victims sustained three fractures on his left temporal
parietal and occipital bones and totally lost his power of
speech. The High Court said that for such serious offences
committed by the appellants they were awarded a sentence of
six months rigorous imprisonment only by the learned trial
Judge.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that by the end of the
month of October, 1971 the appellants would have served
sentence for 10 months and this Court in the facts and
circumstances of the case would reduce the sentence to the
period already undergone.
The High Court in considering the question of sentence exer-
cised powers with reference to the facts and circumstances
of. the case. The exercise of this power cannot be said to
suffer from any infirmity or lack of appreciation of facts.
Nor can it be said that the High Court was not justified in
observing that the sentence passed by the trial court was
lenient in the circumstances of the case. It would be wrong
to interfere with the sentence passed by the High Court.
Any interference has to be supported by rules and principles
in the administration of justice. The ruling of this Court
on the question of sentence in the recent decision in Surta
& Ors. v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 1970
decided on 12 February, 1971) is as follows
"This Court interferes with sentence only when
it is established that the sentence is harsh
or unjust in the facts and circumstances of
the case. Sometimes consideration of age has
also occasioned interference. There ’are
instances of interference in sentences in
cases of violation of statutory offences. In
the present case, the Sessions Court and the
High Court both considered the question of
sentence. There is nothing on record to
suggest that the sentence passed is unjust or
harsh".
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.
318