The division judge bench of Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S, Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi of the apex court in the case of Mohd. Firoz Vs State of Madhya Pradesh modify the sentence imposed for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC and for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, so as to commensurate the said sentences with the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 376(A) of IPC, and accordingly imposes sentence directing the appellant/petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of life imprisonment for the said offences.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant/appellant filed the application in an effort to obtain clarification of the ruling rendered in the case referenced in the application; in actuality, the applicant had requested a review of the ruling with regard to the sentences imposed by the court for offenses under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of the IPC and Sections 5(i) and 5(m) read in conjunction with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Court considered the application as a review petition and ordered the Registry to register as such.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the punishment prescribed for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years and for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act shall not be less than 20 years, but in both cases it may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life. It was further submitted that the for the reasons outlined in the judgement, the court purposefully chose not to sentence the appellant to life in prison for the offence under Section 376(A) of the IPC, which would have meant that he or she would have spent the rest of their natural lives behind bars. As a result, the court's stated goal would be defeated if the sentences of life in prison upheld by this Court for the offences under Sections 376(i) and 376(2)(m) of the IPC and under Section.
The learned counsel appearing for the state of Madhya Pradesh has left the matter to the discretion of the court.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble apex court held that the Court, while commuting the sentence of death for the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, and while imposing sentence to undergo imprisonment for 20 years and not imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under Section 376A, IPC, had tried to balance the scales of retributive justice and restorative justice. The Court, at the same time had confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below for the other offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act which included offence under Sections 376(i) and 376(m) of IPC and Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. Hence, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Marlapalle, if the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court, is also confirmed by this Court for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m), IPC and for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, then the life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for the remainder of the petitioner’s (original appellant’s) natural life, and in that case, the very purpose of the court in not imposing the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of petitioner’s life for the offence under Section 376(A) of IPC, would be frustrated. The Court had consciously imposed the sentence of twenty years for the offence under Section 376A for the reasons stated in the judgment. The Court therefore is inclined to accept the submissions of Mr. Marlapalle, and to modify the sentence imposed for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC and for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, so as to commensurate the said sentences with the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 376(A) of IPC, and accordingly imposes sentence directing the appellant/petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of life imprisonment for the said offences.
CASE NAME- Mohd. Firoz Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
CITATION- REVIEW PETITION(CRL.) NO. 282 OF 2022
CORUM- Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S, Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
DATE-21.10.22
Read Judgment @latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
