SC Dismisses Appeal Seeking Enhancement of Sentence for an Offence Under Sections 364A and 34 IPC

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

In the matter of Parvinder Kansal v. State of NCT of Delhi, a criminal appeal was filed before the Supreme Court which sought enhancement of the sentence imposed for an offence under Section 364A read with Section 34 of IPC. The appeal was dismissed by the court.

Brief Facts of the Case

On 15th October 2007, FIR was registered against the second respondent for the offence u/s 364A r/w Section 34 of IPC. After the charge-sheet was filed against the second respondent, the matter referred to the Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The court convicted the second respondent for an offence punishable under Sections 364A, 302, and 201, IPC in its judgment dated 30th July 2019. The complainant filed an appeal before the HC challenging the order of sentence, that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the second respondent is required to be enhanced to the death penalty. The HC dismissed the appeal stating that it is not maintainable.

Arguments of the appellant

The counsel appeared on the behalf of the appellant contended that Section 372 of Cr.PC gives the right to the victim to appeal when the court has convicted the accused for the lesser offence, and the scope of the appeal extends for the lesser sentence also. It was also submitted that when the appellant’s son was kidnapped and demand a sum of money, the same was paid to the second respondent however his son was brutally murdered. Accordingly, the sentence for the second respondent was required to be increased to the death penalty. The counsel also contended that the HC had not examined the provision under Section 372 of CrPC appropriately and dismissed the appeal.

Arguments of the State

The counsel appeared on behalf of the state submitted that the victim’s appeal is not maintainable under Section 372 of CrPC concerning an increase in sentence. He also stated that the proviso of Section 372 of CrPC gives a right of appeal to the victim but it is confined to three aspects i.e, acquittal of the accused, the conviction of the accused for a lesser offence, or for imposing inadequate compensation. However, the victim has no such provision in appeal, for challenging the order of sentence as inadequate.

Observation of the Court

It was observed that the victim’s appeal does not fall under those three aspects given in Section 372 of CrPC. Whereas, the state government has the power to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377 of CrPC.

Court’s Decision

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court to dismiss the appeal by stating as non-maintainable. The High court relied upon the judgment of the National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 599, and dismissed the appeal.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -