Orissa High Court: While hearing a criminal appeal against the Judgment and Order of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur Road, wherein the convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under section 376(1) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Singe Judge Bench of S.K. Sahoo noted that the convict was sentenced to a punishment lesser than the prescribed punishment for the offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC and therefore sought an explanation from the Presiding Officer concerned as to how he sentenced the convict to rigorous imprisonment for seven years when the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence is ten years.
In the matter at hand, the convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 376(1) of the IPC and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, along with payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section 450 of the IPC.
The Court noted that the incident in question was committed in the intervening night between 15-03-2020 and 16-03-2020 and that the Court below had sentenced the convict to a punishment lesser than the prescribed sentence for the offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC. The Court perused Section 376(1) of the IPC and said that earlier the punishment prescribed for the offence under section 376(1) of the IPC was not to be less than seven years, however, the said provision was substituted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 with effect from 21-04-2018, which provided that the punishment ‘shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine’. The Court added that there is nothing in the Section which gives discretion to the Court to reduce the punishment than minimum sentence prescribed.
Further, the Court said that the Supreme Court has time and again held that Courts cannot impose a punishment lesser than the minimum sentence prescribed under a statute, especially when the said provision does not provide any discretion to the Court to hand down a lesser term of imprisonment having regard for some peculiar circumstances of the case at hand. The Court also relied on State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 774, wherein the same position of law was reiterated by the Supreme Court.
The Court asked for an explanation from the Presiding Officer concerned to give an explanation as to how he sentenced the convict to rigorous imprisonment for seven years when the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence is ten years. The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to communicate the said order to the Presiding Officer concerned through e-mail and directed that the explanation be furnished in the sealed cover on or before 19-07-2023.
The matter was further listed for a hearing on 24-07-2023.
[Chandrakanta Mohapatra v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 4473, order dated: 11-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Advocate A.R. Panda;
For the Respondent: Additional Standing Counsel P.B. Tripathy.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
