2010 (7) TMI 1131 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Sentence Reduction in IPC Case

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the National Commission for Women, holding it not maintainable. The Court upheld the High ... National Commission for Women (the ‘Commission’) - challenging the order of the HC - acquittal u/s 306 IPC - maintaining conviction u/s 376 IPC - quantum of sentence - In Present case, learned ADJ relying primarily on the dying declaration which was the suicide note, convicted the accused u/s 306 and to imprisonment for life u/s 376 both the sentences to run concurrently. An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the HC. The HC held that a case u/s 306 was not made out and the accused was entitled to acquittal under that provision but on the question of the offence u/s 376. An order reducing the term of imprisonment for life to that already undergone was, accordingly, made. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed by the the Commission and the only plea raised is that the reasons given by the High Court for reducing the sentence awarded u/s 376 were not acceptable. HELD THAT:- In the present matter, we find that neither the State which is the complainant nor the heirs of the deceased have chosen to file a petition in the HC. As this responsibility has been taken up by the Commission at its own volition this is clearly not permissible following the decision in case of P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm And Another [1980 (2) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURT]. We are unable to comprehend as to how the Commission was entitled to maintain an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court. An appeal is a creature of a Statute and cannot lie under any inherent power. This Court does undoubtedly grant leave to the appeal under the discretionary power conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the State or an affected private individual but to permit anybody or an organization pro-bono publico to file an appeal would be a dangerous doctrine and would cause utter confusion in the criminal justice system. We are ,therefore, of the opinion that the Special Leave Petition itself was not maintainable. We are of the opinion that the discretion exercised by a Court, particularly a superior court, should not be lightly interfered with. We find that several factors had been taken into account while imposing a lesser sentence and it would be improper for us to interfere in the High Court’s discretion on the quantum of sentence except in extraordinary circumstances. We do not see any such circumstance. We, accordingly, dismiss the Special Leave Petition as not maintainable. The permission to file the Special Leave Petition granted vide this Court’s order dated 2nd April, 2009, is, accordingly, revoked. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the Special Leave Petition by the National Commission for Women.2. High Court's reduction of the sentence under Section 376 IPC.3. Adequacy and special reasons for imposing a lesser sentence.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Special Leave Petition by the National Commission for Women:The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the National Commission for Women challenging the High Court's order. The Court examined the maintainability of the SLP under the inherent powers of the Supreme Court. It was argued that the appeal at the instance of the Commission was maintainable under the inherent powers of the Court, especially since permission to file the SLP had already been granted. However, the Court held that an appeal is a creature of statute and cannot lie under any inherent power. The Court emphasized that only the State Government or the Central Government could direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy as per Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court concluded that the Commission was not entitled to maintain an appeal in the Supreme Court against the High Court's order, and thus, the SLP itself was not maintainable.2. High Court's Reduction of the Sentence under Section 376 IPC:The High Court had reduced the sentence of the accused under Section 376 IPC to the period already undergone, which was about five years and six months. The High Court noted that the victim, Sunita, was 21 years old and had a consensual relationship with the accused. The Court observed that Sunita was mature enough to understand the consequences of her actions and there was no evidence that the accused forced her to have sex with others. The High Court took into account the totality of the circumstances, including the accused's good conduct in jail and his qualification for the Indian Administrative Services, to conclude that the custodial sentence already suffered by the accused met the ends of justice.3. Adequacy and Special Reasons for Imposing a Lesser Sentence:The Court addressed the argument regarding the adequacy of the reasons given by the High Court for reducing the sentence under Section 376 IPC. Sub-section (1) of Section 376 IPC provides for a sentence of up to ten years or life, but the proviso allows the Court to impose a lesser sentence for adequate and special reasons. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by a superior court in imposing a lesser sentence should not be lightly interfered with. The Court found that the High Court had taken several factors into account while imposing a lesser sentence, and it would be improper to interfere with the High Court's discretion on the quantum of sentence except in extraordinary circumstances. The Court did not find any such extraordinary circumstances and thus dismissed the SLP as not maintainable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the National Commission for Women, holding it not maintainable. The Court emphasized that an appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be filed under inherent powers. The discretion exercised by the High Court in reducing the sentence under Section 376 IPC was upheld, and the Court found no extraordinary circumstances to interfere with the High Court's judgment. The permission to file the Special Leave Petition granted earlier was revoked.