Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Triveni & Others on 28 November, 2013
Bench: Dharnidhar Jha, Pankaj Naqvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 42
Government Appeal (Def.) No.
- 315 of 2002.
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondents :- 1. Triveni,
2. Samar Bahadur, &
3. Smt. Kalawati.
Counsel for Appellant :- Smt. Ainakshi Sharma, A.G.A.
Hon'ble Dharnidhar Jha,J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Heard. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
1. We have heard Smt. Ainakshi Sharma, the learned AGA on the State's prayer for enhancing the sentence, which was inflicted upon the respondents by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 1998.
2. The learned Sessions Judge by his order of sentence dated 6.8.2002 had directed the respondents to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304-B IPC and similar nature of imprisonment for 2 years under Section 498-A IPC.
3. Our attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which runs as under:-
"354. Language and contents of judgment. (3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence.
4. It was submitted in the light of the above provision that the learned trial Judge had erred in exercising his sentencing jurisdiction as reason was not assigned as to why rigorous imprisonment for a term only of 10 years and not for life was inflicted upon the respondents and, as such, the sentence required to be revised.
5. On a mere perusal of the above provision indicates that the reason has to be assigned by a court while passing an order of sentence only when the sentence of death is one of the sentences prescribed under law with other alternative sentences, like, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for any term of years. Thus, the sentence of death is essentially to be one of the chief sentences prescribed under law with some other alternative sentences, as may appear from Section 396 IPC, where the legislature has prescribed three alternative modes of sentencing powers to a trial court by directing that an accused convicted for committing that offence may be sentenced with death or in the alternative with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term, which may extend upto 10 years. In our opinion, if for any offence, which has the similar pattern of sentencing jurisdiction assigned to a Court, and the court is not passing the sentence of death, it is required to give reasons and in case it was passing the sentence of death upon a convict, then Section 354(3) of the Cr. P.C. requires that court to assign special reasons.
6. Here in the present case, Section 304-B IPC directs that an accused, who had committed the offence under that provision of the Penal Code, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than 7 years and which may extend to imprisonment for life. Thus, what we find is that the punishment for offence under Section 304-B IPC, as fixed by the Legislature, is within two limits- the outer limit and the lower limit, i.e., the sentence may be somewhere above 7 years and upto imprisonment for life, but never has to be less than 7 years. We find that the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur has inflicted a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, which is above 7 years and below imprisonment for life, which was permissible by the provisions of Section 304-B IPC and for inflicting that sentence, the court, in our opinion, was not required to assign any reason.
7. In the above view of the legislative provision both in the I.P.C. and Cr.P.C., we do not find that the sentence, which was inflicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, could be said to be such, which could be disproportionate on the lower side and, as such, we do not find any merit in the present government appeal.
8. The leave of the Court to appeal is refused. The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date:- 28.11.2013
Chandra
(Pankaj Naqvi,J) (Dharnidhar Jha,J)
