Isha Sawant | Government Law College | 1st September 2020
Parvinder Kansal v. State of NCT of Delhi
Facts:
The appellant- Parvinder Kansal, whose minor son was kidnapped by the second respondent-accused, a demand for ransom was made which was paid by the appellant however, after being kidnapped his son was brutally murdered. The appellant was the complainant who filed a FIR ON 15-10-2007 for offence under section-364A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a charge-sheet was filed on 11-08-2008 against the second-respondent accused under sections 364A/302/201 of the IPC, the case was referred to the court of Special Judge (NDPS), Delhi. By a Judgement dated 30July 2019 the second-respondent accused was convicted under the above-mentioned offences and by an order dated 17 August 2019 he was sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1 lakh u/s 302 IPC, Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. I lakh u/s 364A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with Rs. 50,000 fine u/s 201 IPC; all sentences were to run concurrently. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against this order under section 372 of CrPC submitting that a sentence of life imprisonment is inadequate and should be enhanced to a sentence of death penalty, the High Court vide judgement dated 27 November 2019, dismissed this appeal. This impugned judgement of the High Court is appealed before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner can seek enhancement of sentence under section 372 of CrPC.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 364A of Indian Penal Code.
- Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Appellant’s Contention:
The appellant contended that though the accused had committed murder of an innocent child; the Sessions court sentenced him to Life Imprisonment instead of sentencing him to Death Penalty. They also Contended that section-372 CrPC, gives victim the right to appeal when accused is convicted for a lesser offence, and there is no reason to restrict the scope of appeal to a lesser offence but should include a lesser sentence. They submitted that the kidnapping and brutal murder of his son makes this case fit for enhancing the sentence from Life Imprisonment to Death Penalty. They also contended that the High Court did not consider the provisions under section-372 CrPC with regard to the referred judgement and dismissed the appeal, which is contrary to the meaning of section 372 CrPC.
Respondent’s Contention:
The counsel for the State of NCT Delhi stated the clear reading of sections 372 and 377 of CrPC makes it clear that appeal u/s 372 by the victim is maintainable if accused is acquitted or convicted for a lesser offence or an inadequate compensation is imposed only, whereas u/s 377 only the State Government is empowered to prefer appeal to the High Court against inadequate sentence by Sessions Court. It was so submitted that for enhancement of sentence victim cannot appeal under section 372 of CrPC.
Observations of the Court:
The appeal was heard before the Supreme Court Bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. The court observed that no appeal shall lie against an order of conviction of unless otherwise provided by another Code or Law for that time being in force. The court also held that right to appeal preferred by victim under section 372 CrPC is restricted to if the accused is acquitted or if the conviction is of a lesser sentence or if compensation imposed is inadequate, the same cannot be maintained on the ground of inadequate sentence. The court also stated that the Delhi High Court had rightly relied on the judgement of the apex court in the case of National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and Anr (2010) and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Judgement:
The court found no merit in this appeal to interfere with the decision of Delhi High Court. The appeal was dismissed.
Leave a Reply