High CourtDivision BenchAppeal allowed

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. NANDU @ NANDUA

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal No. 1356 of 2022
Neutral Citation:[2022] 7 S.C.R. 487

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • M. R. Shah
  • Krishna Murari
Judgment Date
2022-09-02
Court Decision / Holding
The impugned judgment and order of the High Court reducing the sentence to the period already undergone is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court’s order imposing life imprisonment is restored. The respondent-accused is to be arrested and to undergo life imprisonment, with eight weeks to surrender.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • The State of Madhya Pradesh

Respondents

  • Nandu @ Nandua

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Ms. Ankita Chaudhary
  • • Gopal Jha
  • • Amit Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging a High Court order that partly allowed the appeal by Nandu @ Nandua and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to the period already undergone for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 IPC. The Trial Court had convicted the accused of murder along with other offences and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court, while upholding the conviction and giving the benefit of private defence for some offences, interfered with the sentence and reduced it to the amount already served (about seven years and ten months). The State submitted that once a defendant is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the minimum punishment is life imprisonment (or death) with a possible fine, and in any case cannot be less than life imprisonment; accordingly, reducing the sentence to the time already undergone is impermissible and contrary to Section 302. The Supreme Court agrees with the State: a sentence below life imprisonment for the offence of murder is contrary to the statute and unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned High Court judgment is quashed; the trial court’s life imprisonment for the respondent is restored, with eight weeks to surrender. The decision reiterates that the mandatory minimum sentence in murder cases cannot be circumvented by mere reductions in sentence for time already served, and clarifies the permissible scope of appellate review in such contexts. It also preserves conviction for the other offences.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 302/34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Right to private defence
  • Mandatory minimum sentence principle under Section 302 IPC (life imprisonment)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

State counsel submitted that once an accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the minimum punishment is life imprisonment and not less than that (the option of death is reserved for the most extraordinary cases). The State argued that the High Court erred by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone (approximately seven years and ten months). It contended that any sentence less than life imprisonment for murder would be contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 302 IPC and would undermine the severity of the crime. The State urged restoration of life imprisonment with appropriate directions for surrender and emphasized that the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 IPC should stand, with the sentence aligned to the life imprisonment minimum. The State also argued that the High Court’s reliance on the Private Defence spirit cannot override the statutory minimum sentence for murder.

Contentions of Respondents

Counsel for the accused contended that the High Court correctly affirmed the conviction while exercising its discretionary power to modify the sentence due to the defence aspects and the time already served. They argued that the period already undergone, about seven years, represented substantial time in custody and that the Court could exercise leniency within the statutory framework, considering the accused’s overall conduct, the backdrop of the case, and the responsibilities of the appellate court to avoid disproportionate punishment. They asserted that the alternative of life imprisonment might be disproportionate in light of evidence and mitigating factors, and requested upholding the conviction but reducing the sentence consistent with the High Court’s approach.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. NANDU @ NANDUA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

487 [2022] 7 S.C.R. 487 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A v. ## NANDU @ NANDUA (Criminal Appeal No. 1356 of 2022) ## SEPTEMBER 02, 2022 B ## **[M. R. SHAH, JJ. AND KRISHNA MURARI]** _Sentence/Sentencing – ss.147,148,323 and 302/34 of IPC – Reduction of sentence by the High Court – Proper or not – The respondent-accused along with other accused was convicted for the offence punishable u/ss.147,148,323 and 302/34 of IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial Court – High Court maintained the conviction under aforesaid sections but reduced the sentence to approximately seven years and ten months, the period of sentence undergone by the respondent – State approached the Supreme Court and submitted that the reduction in sentence is contrary to s.302 IPC – On appeal, held: Though the High Court has maintained the conviction of the respondent for the offence u/ s.302 IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to sentence already undergone which is less than imprisonment for life, which shall be contrary to s.302 IPC and is unsustainable – Judgment and order of High Court set aside – Judgment and order passed by the trial Court restored._ C D E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1356 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2019 of the High Court F of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur in CRA No. 219 of 1995. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Dy. AG, Gopal Jha, Amit Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G ## **M. R. SHAH, J.** 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1995 by which the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent - accused – Nandu H 487 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. - A @ Nandua and has reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to the sentence already undertone while maintaining his conviction for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the State has preferred the present appeal. 2. We have heard Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Deputy B Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant - State. 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Trial Court convicted the respondent - accused alongwith other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. However, by the C impugned judgment and order, though the High Court has maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC by giving benefit of right to private defence, the High Court has thereafter interfered with the sentence and reduced the same to the already undergone by him. At this stage, it is required to be noted that by the time, the High Court passed the impugned judgment D and order reducing the sentence, the period of sentence undergone by the respondent - accused was approximately seven years and ten months. 4. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that when the High Court has maintained the conviction of the accused for the E offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the punishment which can be imposed would be punishment with death or imprisonment for life and also fine, but in any case, it shall not be less than the imprisonment for life. 4.1 It is vehemently submitted that once an accused is held to be F guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the minimum sentence, which is imposable would be the imprisonment for life and, therefore, any punishment/sentence less than the imprisonment for life shall be contrary to Section 302 of the IPC. It is submitted that therefore the High Court has committed a very serious error in reducing the sentence G to already undergone (seven years and ten months). H 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which though the High Court has maintained the conviction of the respondent - accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to already undergone, i.e., THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. NANDU @ NANDUA 489 [M. R. SHAH, J.] seven years and ten months, we are of the firm view that the same is A impermissible and unsustainable. The punishment for murder under Section 302 IPC shall be death or imprisonment for life and fine. Therefore, the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine. There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is B convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order though the High Court has specifically maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC, but the High Court has reduced C the sentence to sentence already undergone which is less than imprisonment for life, which shall be contrary to Section 302 IPC and is unsustainable. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the sentence of the respondent – accused to the sentence already undergone while maintaining the conviction of the respondent – accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court imposing the life imprisonment is hereby restored. Now, the respondent – accused to be arrested and to undergo life imprisonment for which we give eight weeks’ time to the accused to surrender before the concerned Court/Jail Authority. D E Ankit Gyan (Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA) Appeal allowed. F G H