1972 (3) TMI 111 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court restores original sentence for appellant under Section 366 IPC

Shiv Govind Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's sentence enhancement from one year to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under ... - Issues:1. Appeal against enhancement of sentence under Section 366 IPC.2. Evaluation of evidence regarding the age and consent of the victim.3. Application of Probation of Offender's Act.4. Review of the High Court's decision to enhance the sentence.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant appealed against the enhancement of his sentence under Section 366 IPC from one year to seven years of rigorous imprisonment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant, along with two others, was convicted for offenses under Sections 366 and 354 IPC related to the abduction and molestation of a minor girl. The High Court enhanced the sentence based on the victim's trust in one of the accused, overlooking the trial court's balanced assessment of the evidence.2. The trial court evaluated the evidence, including medical evidence to determine the victim's age, which was crucial as her consent was deemed immaterial due to her age. Despite discrepancies in the victim's statements, the trial court concluded she was between 16 to 19 years old based on expert medical testimony. The victim's escape from the accused's clutches and corroboration of events by witnesses supported the charges under Sections 366 and 354 IPC against the accused.3. The appellant also sought the benefit of the Probation of Offender's Act, but his application was rejected by the High Court. The Probation Officer's favorable report was considered, but the High Court upheld the enhanced sentence based on the severity of the offense and the appellant's conduct. The High Court's decision was influenced by the victim's perceived heroism in escaping the situation, leading to the rejection of the probation application.4. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's decision and found that the High Court had overlooked established principles governing sentence enhancement. Citing precedents, the Supreme Court emphasized that interference with sentences imposed by trial courts should only occur in cases of manifest inadequacy. The Court concluded that the High Court's decision lacked justification and did not consider all relevant facts, leading to the restoration of the original one-year sentence for the appellant under Section 366 IPC.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's sentence enhancement, and restored the original one-year rigorous imprisonment for the appellant under Section 366 IPC. The concurrent sentence of four months under Section 354 IPC was maintained. The Court directed the appellant's release if he had already served more than the one-year sentence, unless required in another case.