Failure To Impose Fine U/S 307 IPC Is A Sentencing Error; Cannot Rectify It In Appeal Filed Solely By Convict: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Santosh Rai, however, clarified that in the absence of an appeal either by the State or the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence by imposing a fine, the High Court can't rectify the omission in an appeal preferred solely by the convict.

"In an appeal preferred solely by the convict under Section 374 CrPC, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 386 CrPC, cannot enhance the sentence to the appellant's prejudice in the absence of a cross- appeal or notice for enhancement", the bench observed.

The single judge made these observations while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by one Gajendra, who had challenged his 1982 conviction and a 5-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for brutally stabbing a young girl.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the prosecution's case is that on May 19, 1982, at about 9.30 am, the appellant, armed with a knife, entered the house, caught hold of the victim from behind and inflicted as many as ten incised wounds on different parts of her body with the intention of causing her death.

In November 1982, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and 2 years under Section 452 IPC (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint).

In his appeal against conviction, the appellant-accused argued that the conviction rested on the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of the victim after the independent witnesses of the occurrence were declared hostile.

It was also contended that the nature and spread of the injuries on the hands, fingers, legs and chest are consistent with a struggle of a different origin altogether, and it has not been ruled out that some person other than the appellant was the real assailant.

High Court's Observations

Rejecting these arguments, Justice Rai observed that the law does not insist on plurality of witnesses, and a conviction can be founded on the testimony of a single witness if it is found to be wholly reliable.

The single judge found the testimony of the injured victim to be reliable and consistent. He also observed that her account was corroborated in material particulars by the medical evidence.

Addressing the arguments regarding the severity of the injuries, the bench clarified that Section 307 IPC does not require that the injury actually inflicted be sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.

It noted that it is essential to show that the act be done with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that if death had resulted, the offence would have amounted to murder.

"The premeditated manner of entry timed to when the victim was alone the choice of weapon, the number and location of the wounds, and the fact that a life-threatening injury on the chest was inflicted, taken cumulatively, admit of no inference other than that the appellant acted with the intention of causing the death of the victim", the bench noted.

While upholding the conviction and the jail term, the High Court, however, identified a significant infirmity in the trial court's 1982 judgment. The trial court had failed to impose any fine on the convict.

The bench noted that Section 307 IPC explicitly renders an offender “liable to fine” in addition to imprisonment, making the imposition of a fine a mandatory concomitant of the jail sentence.

"Where the IPC provision prescribes punishment in the form:”…shall be punished with imprisonment …and shall also be liable to fine”, or”…with imprisonment and fine”, the trial court is expected to impose fine also. Failure to impose fine amounts to an error in sentencing. The absence of fine, under section 307 IPC therefore, by itself constitute an infirmity in the sentence as recorded", the Court observed.

Despite finding fault with the trial court's judgment, the High Court noted that neither the State nor the complainant had filed any appeal or revision under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. seeking an enhancement of the sentence, and hence, it could not enhance the sentence and impose a fine.

Consequently, the High Court upheld the trial court's original sentence in its entirety and denied the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act in light of the brutal nature of the crime. The bench directed the appellant to surrender within 2 weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.