Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2010 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 1131 - SC - Indian LawsNational Commission for Women (the ‘Commission’) - challenging the order of the HC - acquittal u/s 306 IPC - maintaining conviction u/s 376 IPC - quantum of sentence - In Present case, learned ADJ relying primarily on the dying declaration which was the suicide note, convicted the accused u/s 306 and to imprisonment for life u/s 376 both the sentences to run concurrently. An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the HC. The HC held that a case u/s 306 was not made out and the accused was entitled to acquittal under that provision but on the question of the offence u/s 376. An order reducing the term of imprisonment for life to that already undergone was, accordingly, made. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed by the the Commission and the only plea raised is that the reasons given by the High Court for reducing the sentence awarded u/s 376 were not acceptable. HELD THAT:- In the present matter, we find that neither the State which is the complainant nor the heirs of the deceased have chosen to file a petition in the HC. As this responsibility has been taken up by the Commission at its own volition this is clearly not permissible following the decision in case of P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm And Another [1980 (2) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURT]. We are unable to comprehend as to how the Commission was entitled to maintain an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court. An appeal is a creature of a Statute and cannot lie under any inherent power. This Court does undoubtedly grant leave to the appeal under the discretionary power conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the State or an affected private individual but to permit anybody or an organization pro-bono publico to file an appeal would be a dangerous doctrine and would cause utter confusion in the criminal justice system. We are ,therefore, of the opinion that the Special Leave Petition itself was not maintainable. We are of the opinion that the discretion exercised by a Court, particularly a superior court, should not be lightly interfered with. We find that several factors had been taken into account while imposing a lesser sentence and it would be improper for us to interfere in the High Court’s discretion on the quantum of sentence except in extraordinary circumstances. We do not see any such circumstance. We, accordingly, dismiss the Special Leave Petition as not maintainable. The permission to file the Special Leave Petition granted vide this Court’s order dated 2nd April, 2009, is, accordingly, revoked.
|