2017 (4) TMI 1524 - SC - Indian Laws

Theft of currency notes of the complainant - process attempted to kill the complainant - charges under Sections 328 392 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code - Whether the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction Under Section 386 of the Code could have set-aside the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by trial court Under Section 328 392 and 307 Indian Penal Code by enhancing the amount of fine to Rs. 30, 000/- from the fine Rs. 2, 000/- as ordered by trial court? HELD THAT - High Court thus has not reversed the finding of the guilt and without altering the finding of the guilt recorded by trial court has altered the sentence. In altering the sentence High Court has exercised its power Under Section 386(b)(iii) of the Code. What is the meaning and content of Statutory Scheme as delineated by the words alter the nature or the extent of the sentence but not so as to enhance the same has to be considered and answered in this appeal. Whether in altering the sentence the High Court is empowered to alter the sentence to an extent which could not have been awarded by the trial court after recording the finding of the guilt? The trial court after holding the Accused guilty has sentenced her for rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs. 2, 000/- in default of payment further simple imprisonment for a period of three months for each of the above offences - What is the content and meaning of the word shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine whether after finding the Accused guilty of the aforesaid offences the trial court could have imposed sentence only of a fine or it was incumbent on the trial court to impose the sentence of imprisonment as well as fine? Prior to amendments made in Section 309 by Act 8 of 1882 the punishment provided for Section 309 was simple imprisonment for a term which can be extended to one year or and shall also be liable to fine. By the above amendments of 1882 the words and shall also be liable to fine have been deleted and substituted by the words or with fine or with both . The legislature is thus well aware of the distinction between the punishment which provides imprisonment and with fine and punishment by imprisonment or fine or by both. Where punishment provided is both by imprisonment and fine can Court punish only with fine? - In the present case High Court by its judgment has punished the Accused only with fine after affirming the finding of the guilt recorded by the trial court. While maintaining the conviction of the Appellants we remit the case to the High Court; the High Court will consider again on the findings already recorded the question of sentence-(a) for the offence Under Section 18(c) punishable Under Section 27(a)(ii) so far as Appellants 2 and 3 are concerned and (b) for the offence punishable Under Section 28 of which all the three Appellants have been found guilty, - and pass appropriate sentences - Appeal allowed in part. Whether Under Section 386 of the Code which empowers the Appellate Court to alter the nature or the extent or nature and extent of sentence empowers the Appellate Court to alter the sentence of imprisonment and fine into a sentence of fine only. The power of the Appellate Court as contained Under Section 386 is coextensive with the power of trial court. In a case where trial court had acquitted an Accused Under Section 386(a) the Appellate Court can reverse an order of acquittal and hold the Accused guilty and pass such sentence on him according to law. Thus even when the Appellate Court has been given power to reverse an acquittal and hold the Accused guilty the power to pass sentence is to be exercised according to law. The word according to law clearly indicates the sentence as provided under the Indian Penal Code. Thus power of Appellate Court to sentence an Accused after holding him guilty has to be in accordance with the punishment as provided under Indian Penal Code. Thus while exercising power Under Section 386(b) when the Appellate Court has been given power to alter the nature or the extent or nature and extent both of the sentence altering of the sentence has also to be in accordance with the Scheme of punishment as contained in the Indian Penal Code - Appellate Court cannot exercise its power under 386(b) (iii) to alter the sentence of the imprisonment and fine into a sentence of only a fine which shall be contrary to the Statutory Scheme. In event such power is conceded to Appellate Authority to alter a sentence of imprisonment and fine with sentence only of a fine the consequences will be unfair and unjust. There cannot be any dispute as to the power of the Appellate Court to alter the nature and extent of the sentence without altering the finding. Thus even in a case when High Court affirms the finding of guilt the nature and extent of sentence can very well be altered. The Appellate Court taking into consideration the case can alter/reduce the sentence - In the present case the High Court has affirmed the finding of the guilt but has erroneously set-aside the sentence of imprisonment by providing for fine of Rs. 30, 000/- only. Trial court while sentencing the Appellant has thus taken above circumstances into consideration and for offences Under Section 328 307 and 392 Indian Penal Code has awarded imprisonment of two years only with a fine of Rs. 2, 000/- each - The maximum sentence Under Section 328 is ten years Under Section 307 is ten years and in case of hurt it is life imprisonment or such punishment. In Section 392 Indian Penal Code the maximum punishment is for the period of fourteen years. The fact that Accused has three minor sons out of them two are mentally retarded was taken into consideration by trial court and after considering the aforesaid fact sentence of imprisonment of only two years was ordered - the order of the High Court modifying the sentence is unsustainable and is hereby set-aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of substituting imprisonment with fine.
2. Consideration of mitigating circumstances for sentencing.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Substituting Imprisonment with Fine:

The core issue was whether the High Court was permitted, in law, to do away with the punishment of imprisonment altogether and substitute it with a fine alone. The Supreme Court emphasized that the language of Sections 307, 328, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) mandates both imprisonment and fine. The Court referenced the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, explaining that it is imperative to impose both sentences. The High Court's approach of substituting imprisonment with a fine was deemed impermissible in law. The judgment clarified that the appellate court's power under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to alter the sentence must adhere to the provisions of the IPC, which require both imprisonment and fine for the specified offences.

2. Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances for Sentencing:

The second issue addressed whether the circumstances pleaded by the respondent justified taking a lenient view. The respondent, being a woman with three minor children, two of whom were mentally unsound, argued for leniency. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while gender and personal circumstances could be considered, they should not overshadow the gravity of the offence. The Court highlighted that the trial court had already taken these factors into account, awarding a lenient sentence of two years of simple imprisonment. The High Court's further reduction to a fine alone was found unjustifiable, particularly given the serious nature of the crimes, including administering intoxicants, robbery, and attempted murder.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the necessity of imprisonment in addition to a fine for the offences under Sections 307, 328, and 392 IPC. The High Court's modification, which set aside the imprisonment, was overturned, reinforcing the principle that punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and adhere to statutory requirements. The appeal by the State was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court.