State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Sheikh Shahid

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2009-04-15
Case No: 660 of 2004
Judge Name: Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta & P. Sathasivam
Subject: Criminal Law-Kidnapping
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section: 376 IPC
Bench Strength: Full Bench
Advocate: Govind Goel, Amboj Agarwal, C.D. Singh and Kamakshi
State of Appellant(s): Madhya Pradesh
History of Case No: The respondents-accused preferred an appeal (Crl. Appeal No.299/2003) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. By the impugned judgment, the High Court directed the sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone
Equal Citation Details :

AIR2009SC2951, JT2009(8)SC277, 2009(5)SCALE679, (2009)12SCC715, [2009]6SCR1038

Case Note / Description :

The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, and offences of dacoity, kidnapping,misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. [Para 14] [1046-G-H; 1047-A-B] Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. 1994 (2) SCC 220; Ravji v. State of Rajasthan 1996 (2) SCC 175 and State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh 2003 (8) SCC 13, referred to. 2. In both sub-sections (1) and (2) of s.376 IPC, minimum sentences are prescribed. Both in cases of sub-sections (1) and (2) the court has the discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment less than the prescribed minimum for `adequate and special reasons. In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the statutory requirement is that the court has to record "adequate and special reasons" in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only to be adequate but also special. If the court does not mention such reasons in the judgment there is no scope for awarding a sentence lesser than the prescribed minimum. In the instant case, the only reason indicated by the High Court is that the accused belonged to rural areas. The same can by no stretch of imagination be considered either adequate or special. The requirement in law is cumulative. Considering the legal position, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 

Indian Penal Code, 1860

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)