Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent - State supports the order passed by the trial Court. According to him, the trial Court has awarded proper sentence having regard to the nature of the ofence and the manner in which it was committed. Learned APP would submit that even prior to the incident the appellant-accused had abused and assaulted the victim. According to him, considering the manner in which the knife injuries were inficted on the vital part of the body and that too, having threatened the crowd that had gathered with dire consequences should they try to save her, this is a ft case where no leniency should be shown to the appellant-accused. The sentence imposed by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be said to be unjustifed. In support of his submission that the appellant-accused deserves no leniency, learned APP would rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kashiram and others5.

10. The trial Court considering the age of the appellant - accused, the age of the victim and the conduct of the appellant- accused found that this is not a ft case to grant either leniency or probation. The trial Court in paragraph 41 observed thus :

"41. Considering the age of the accused and the prosecutrix and the conduct of the accused, the case is not found ft for grant of either leniency or probation. It is repeatedly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the ofence against Woman Atrocity are the ofence of the moral turpitude and no leniency can be shown for such crimes as those are considered as crime against society. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court the accused is not found entitled to leniency as prayed for. Considering the circumstances the court is of the opinion that the following punishment would meet the ends of justice."

2.cri appeal 1070-15.odt Accordingly, the trial Court imposed the punishment of imprisonment for life.

11. It can thus be seen from the judgment of the trial Court which after considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kashiram and others (supra), found that the accused is not entitled to any leniency in the circumstances of the present case. The Apex Court has held that the question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion for the Courts and has to be exercised on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. The nature of the injuries caused in the occurrence and the weapon used which will have bearing on the question of sentence and the Courts are bound to impose sentence commensurate with the gravity of the ofence. It is thus held that though the Court has discretion in awarding the sentence, it should be commensurate with the gravity of the ofence. Further the Court has to record brief reasons to explain the choice of sentence.

17. Having considered the legal position illuminatingly stated by the Apex Court, in our opinion, in the present facts and circumstances, the sentence imposed by the trial Court requires to be reduced. In the facts of the present case, the appellant- accused inficted knife injuries on the neck of the victim. This incident was a fall out of victim's refusal to marry the appellant- accused after the victim called of the love afair which was objected by her uncle. On the date of the incident in question, the appellant-accused was 25 years of age. He caused injuries on the person of the victim with a knife which endangered her life. The injuries in question are simple in nature. No doubt, the appellant-accused has to be dealt with sternly and with an iron hand. Merely because the appellant-accused is in custody for the last more than 6 years, is no ground to show any leniency much