Reduce the sentence of imprisionment – when the offence was taken palce due to spur ofmovement and withoutany intention – when the accused is the only bread winner and entire of his family depends on him – court at it’s discreation reduce the sentence imposed by lower court.

1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2020
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2749 OF 2019)
CHANDRAKUMAR @ KALI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
R. BANUMATHI,J.
Leave granted.

  1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order
    dated 18.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CRA
    No. 1574 of 1996 in and by which the High Court has reduced the
    sentence awarded to the appellant from ten years to five years.
  2. On 24.09.1994 at about 05.30 a.m. in a wordy quarrel, when the
    deceased Munna was milking the buffalo in Kanhaiya Dairy owned by
    the appellant-accused, the appellant-accused came to the deceased
    and asked to show the bucket of milk. On seeing the less quantity
    of milk, the appellant-accused is alleged to have beaten the
    deceased with bamboo stick on the head due to which the deceased
    fell down on the ground and became unconscious. The appellantaccused with the help of other servants took the deceased to the
    hospital where the deceased died on 20.10.1994. Initially the case
    was registered under Section 307 IPC which was subsequently
    2
    altered to Section 302 IPC.
  3. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court observed
    that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause
    the death of deceased. The Trial Court vide judgment dated
    16.09.1996 convicted the appellant-accused under Section 304 PartII and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment.
  4. In appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court,
    the High Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the
    case, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from ten years to five
    years.
  5. Being aggrieved, the appellant-accused has preferred this
    appeal.
  6. We have heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel
    appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. Ravi Prakash
    Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentState of Madhya Pradesh.
  7. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing on
    behalf of the appellant submitted that though in SLP grounds
    various contentions have been raised assailing the conviction but
    when we have heard the matter, learned senior counsel mainly
    confined his submissions only on the question of sentence. It is
    also submitted that the appellant-accused has two daughters of
    marriageable age viz. 19 and 21 years and there is no male member
    in the family to take care of the family and also of the daughters.
  8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
    and also the submissions of learned senior counsel appearing on
    behalf of the appellant-accused, we reduce the sentence of
    3
    imprisonment awarded to the appellant from five years to two years.
  9. The appeal is partly allowed.
  10. Since the above order is passed in the peculiar facts and
    circumstances of the case, the same may not be quoted as a
    precedent in any other case.
    ……………………………………………………J.
    [R.BANUMATHI]
    NEW DELHI …………………………………………………..J.
    3RD MARCH, 2020 [A.S.BOPANNA]