Murder Of 3 Persons: SC Modifies Sentence Of Convict To 30 Years On Account Of Gravity Of Offence
The Supreme Court has modified the sentence of a convict to thirty years who was involved in the murder of three persons after looking at the gravity of the offence.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “Looking at the gravity of the offence, the High Court was justified in imposing a fixed-term sentence. The question is whether the appellant should be directed to undergo imprisonment till the end of his life. … we are of the opinion that a modified sentence for a period of 30 years deserves to be imposed on the appellant.”
The Bench upheld the conviction of the appellant but directed that he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a fixed period of 30 years.
Advocate Kaushal Yadav appeared on behalf of the appellant/convict while Advocate Sunny Choudhary appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
In this case, the appellant, along with other co-accused, committed the murder of three persons and they alleged to have formed a wrongful assembly with the common object of murdering the persons. The accused were armed with deadly weapons, such as a country-made pistol, lance, javelin, battle-axe, axe , and sticks and apart from killing three persons, they caused injuries to two more persons.
The Sessions Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the three other co-accused were also convicted for the same offence. All the accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a direction that their imprisonment shall continue for the rest of their lives and thereafter, in the appeal preferred by the appellant, the High Court confirmed the sentence.
The Supreme Court in view of the aforesaid facts observed, “We find that in their cross-examination, no material is brought on record to discredit their version. After appreciating the evidence of these three eyewitnesses, the Sessions Court and the High Court found them to be trustworthy and therefore, their evidence has been relied upon.”
The Court found no reason to take a contrary view and considered the only question regarding the sentence.
“Though the Sessions Court could not have imposed a modified sentence by directing that the appellant shall be imprisoned for the rest of his life, the High Court could have certainly imposed such a punishment. … We find from the record that at the time of the commission of the offence, the age of the present appellant was only 20 years. When the appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court, his age was 25 years. As of now, he has undergone an actual sentence for a period of about 15 years and 3 months. The finding of the Trial Court is that there was no material placed on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant was involved in any other offence”, asserted the Court.
The Court said that it was a case of a very brutal offence committed by a group of accused who were armed with deadly weapons killing three persons and injuring two and hence directed that the appellant will not be entitled to claim any statutory remission under the Cr.PC.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal, upheld the conviction, and modified the sentence.
Cause Title- Shiv Mangal Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
