{"id":201344,"date":"2018-09-05T12:30:57","date_gmt":"2018-09-05T07:00:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=201344"},"modified":"2018-09-07T09:43:55","modified_gmt":"2018-09-07T04:13:55","slug":"sentence-undergone-age-of-convict-no-criminal-antecedents-non-denial-of-commission-relevant-facts-to-alter-punishment-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/05\/sentence-undergone-age-of-convict-no-criminal-antecedents-non-denial-of-commission-relevant-facts-to-alter-punishment-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence undergone, age of convict, no criminal antecedents, non-denial of commission\u2014Relevant facts to alter punishment: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court:<\/strong> Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. delivered the judgment for himself and Uday U. Lalit, J. wherein the appeal filed by the convict under Sections 294, 353, 504 read with Section 34 IPC, was allowed in part. The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court which\u00a0 upheld his conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.<\/p>\n

As per the prosecution case, the appellant (Sarpanch of the village) along with the co-accused (Member of Gram Panchayat) reached the Zilla Parishad primary school. They asked PW-1, the teacher, as to why he was not regular and punctual. The explanation given by PW-1 did not satisfy the appellant. PW-1 was asked to bring the book of circle-in-charge which\u00a0 was refused by PW-1. Thereafter, PW-1 was held from the collar of his shirt and beatings were given to him. The appellant along with the co-accused was tried and convicted for the charges as mentioned above by the trial court. An appeal was preferred to the High Court which acquitted the co-accused but the appeal so far it concerned the appellant herein was dismissed. Aggrieved thus, the appellant filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court considered the factual matrix and was of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the appellant deserved to be modified. For reaching such conclusion, the Court gave relevance to four facts which are enumerated hereinafter:<\/p>\n