Category: Judgement And Sentencing

ISSUE:

Whether the conviction of Monica Bedi violated the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC?

Whether the prosecution proved the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC in relation to the fraudulent procurement of a passport?

Whether the offence of cheating by personation under Section 419 IPC and cheating under Section 420 IPC was made out against Monica Bedi?

Whether the submission of false verification reports and forged documents constituted forgery under Section 468 IPC?

Whether the involvement of a public servant in submitting a fraudulent verification report for a passport attracted liability under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

RULE:

Double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC applies only when the same offence, not merely the same facts, has been prosecuted and punished twice. The test is whether the ingredients of both offences are identical, not whether the allegations arise from the same transaction.

Criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC does not require direct proof of agreement; it can be inferred from conduct, circumstances, and execution of an unlawful objective.

Cheating by personation under Section 419 IPC is committed when a person deceives an authority by falsely representing themselves as another. The offence is complete upon misrepresentation, regardless of whether the deception results in actual harm.

ISSUE:

Whether the death penalty awarded to the appellants falls within the "rarest of rare" category, justifying the ultimate punishment?

Whether sentencing discretion should focus solely on the nature of the crime or also consider the circumstances of the criminal?

Whether the balance-sheet approach of weighing aggravating and mitigating factors is legally valid under Bachan Singh?

Whether life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s life or a fixed term subject to remission?

RULE:

The death penalty must only be imposed when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. The sentencing court must consider both the crime and the criminal before deciding on capital punishment. If there is any possibility of reformation, the death penalty is not justified.

Sentencing must not be based solely on the brutality of the crime but must also consider the individual circumstances of the accused. The shift from Jagmohan Singh to Bachan Singh requires an individualized sentencing approach that includes factors like the criminal’s background, psychological state, and likelihood of rehabilitation.

The balance-sheet approach to aggravating and mitigating factors is flawed. Aggravating circumstances relate to the crime, while mitigating circumstances pertain to the criminal; they cannot be mechanically compared. Sentencing must be principle-based rather than a mathematical exercise.

ISSUE:

Whether the enhancement of accused’s sentence from life imprisonment to the death penalty by the Court, without adhering to the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 235(2) of the CrPC, is legally valid?

RULE:

Breach of the necessary requirement of S. 235(2) CrPC can vitiate the sentence.

Section 235(2) is not confined merely to hearing oral submissions, but also provides an opportunity for the prosecution and the accused to place before the court, facts and other relevant materials relating to the question of sentence and if they are contested, then to produce evidence to establish the same.

Asking the accused for his stance on the question of sentence is not enough to satisfy S. 235(2) CrPC, the onus is on the judge to make a genuine effort to extract all the information from the accused related to the question of sentence.

ISSUE:

Whether a court can impose a separate sentence in default of payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the CrPC and the legality of awarding imprisonment in the absence of default sentencing provisions in the CrPC?

RULE:

Section 357 (3) of CrPC Empowers courts to order compensation to victims where no fine is imposed.

Courts can recover fines and analogous compensation, providing mechanisms for enforcement u/s 421 CrPC

Section 64, IPC allows for imprisonment in cases where fines are not paid.

Compensatory orders should carry the weight of enforceability to ensure victims receive immediate relief and that penalties serve as deterrents.

Including a default sentence is permissible and serves as a necessary deterrent to ensure compliance with the compensation order. Without such a provision, the purpose of awarding compensation could be defeated, as the complainant would otherwise need to pursue separate legal remedies to enforce the compensation order.

ISSUE:

Whether the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Division Bench of the High Court justified?

Whether all the accused persons had participated in the assault or not?

RULE:

Setting aside a conviction or direction for retrial merely on the ground of irregularity of committal proceedings is impermissible under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ISSUE:

Whether the judgment of the Trial Court which did not contain the witnesses examined at trial, arguments by the prosecution and defence before the Court valid?

RULE:

Section 354(1) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

ISSUE:

Whether noncompliance with s. 235(2) is merely an irregularity which can be cured by s. 465 or it is an illegality which vitiates the sentence?

RULE:

Section 235(2) is clear and explicit in its wording such that, when a judgment is rendered convicting the accused, he is, at that stage, to be given an opportunity to be heard in regard to the sentence and it is only after hearing him that the court can proceed to pass the sentence.