Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2006 DIGILAW 378 (SC)

State Of M. P. v. JALEEL KHAN

2006-03-31

B.N.SRIKRISHNA, TARUN CHATTERJEE

body2006
ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2006 {arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3939 of 2004} 1. Leave granted. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents identifies the accused, namely, Jaleel Khan and Kishanlal, who are present before us. 3. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 4. The accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 342 of the Penal Code (IPC). The accused Ja1eel Khan was further held guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 506 Part II IPC. For offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused (Jaleel Khan and Kishanlal) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years in addition to a fine of Rs 5000 with a default clause. 5. For offence punishable under Section 342 IPC each of the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs 500 with a default clause. 6. The accused Jaleel Khan was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in addition to a fine of Rs 200 for an offence punishable under Section 506 Part II IPC with a default clause. 7. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 8. The accused moved the High Court and before the High Court the accused did not challenge their conviction at all. The only argument presented to the High Court was with regard to the quantum of sentence. The High Court has reduced the sentence to the one already undergone by each of them. The reasons given in support of the reduction of sentence are that they are in custody since 25 - 4 - 2001; that they are semi - literate agricultural labourers coming from rural area; and that considering the evidence on record, it appears to be a fit case to reduce the sentences of imprisonment to the period already undergone. 9. In our view, none of the grounds adduced by the High Court, taken separately or cumulatively, make out a case for reduction of the sentences. Parliament has considered the offence under Section 376(2)(g) to be a very serious offence and for that reason mandated minimum punishment of ten years for the conviction thereunder, unless there are adequate and special reasons mentioned in the judgment warranting punishment less than the minimum punishment. Parliament has considered the offence under Section 376(2)(g) to be a very serious offence and for that reason mandated minimum punishment of ten years for the conviction thereunder, unless there are adequate and special reasons mentioned in the judgment warranting punishment less than the minimum punishment. We are not satisfied that this is a situation where the minimum punishment could have been reduced by the High Court. It appears to us, this was a case of unwarranted sympathy on the part of the High Court. 10. In the result, we allow the appeal of the State and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The judgment of the Sessions Judge is affirmed. The accused, namely, Jaleel Khan and Kishanlal, shall forthwith be taken into custody to serve their sentences. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 619 of 2005 11. In view of the order made in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2006 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3939 of 2004], this petition has become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.