fine imposition - The Legal Chamber

Compromise Between Parties Leads to Early Release as Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Criminal Appeal

26Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Compromise Between Parties Leads to Early Release as Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Criminal Appeal

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone (two years and three months) while upholding the conviction. Notice had been limited to quantum of sentence. The Court considered the compromise between parties and the incarceration period served, modifying the sentence accordingly with direction for immediate release if not required in other cases. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, Venkatesh and another individual, were originally convicted by the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C. No.460/2016 on November 3, 2020. The charges stemmed from Crime No.103/2016, under which they were found guilty of offenses under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to voluntarily causing g...

No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for aggravated sexual assault on a child. The Court ruled that cogent ocular evidence from witnesses, including the victim's traumatized behavior, can sustain a conviction even if medical evidence does not show injury or penetration. The sentence was partially modified. Facts Of The Case: On August 15, 2021, the appellant, Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari, returned to the victim's home in Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, with her father and another man after collecting wood. After consuming alcohol, the victim's four-year-old daughter was sleeping inside. Around 4:30 p.m., the mother went inside to give food to the appellant and found him wearing only shorts, sitting near her daughter's legs. Th...

Supreme Court : Key NDPS Ruling Courts Can Impose Harsher Sentences Without Specific Reasons

The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act, ruling that courts are not restricted to the factors listed in clauses (a) to (f) for imposing sentences higher than the minimum. The judgment affirmed that judicial discretion allows consideration of additional relevant factors, such as the quantity of contraband, to justify enhanced punishment. It overturned the High Court’s erroneous view that special reasons under Section 32-B were mandatory for exceeding the minimum sentence. The decision reinforces that sentencing flexibility under the NDPS Act remains broad, subject only to reasonableness and relevance of the factors considered. Facts Of The Case: In September 2018, the police in Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, received information that Narayan Das and anothe...