Dismissed

Krishan Kumar Kaura v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2013CRM-A/528/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the Crl. Misc. appeal and application for condonation of delay. It held that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC does not confer a right on a victim to appeal for enhancement of sentence, citing National Commission of Women v. State of Delhi.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay were dismissed.

Krishan Kumar Kaura Vs State of Punjab… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

(204)

¶2

CRM No. 39550 of 2012 in/and CRMA No.528-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

[1]

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM No. 39550 of 2012 in/and CRMA No.528-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶6

Date of decision : 20.5.2013.

Krishan Kumar Kaura

..... Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶11

..... Respondents

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH.

¶13

Present : Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate for the appellant. ***

¶14

S.S. SARON, J.

¶15

Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf

¶16

of respondents No.2 to 4.

¶17

The Crl. Misc. appeal has been filed by Krishan Kumar

¶18

Kaura, father of the deceased Raman Kumar, seeking enhancement and modification of sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the learned trial Court to death penalty. Along with the appeal, a Crl. Misc. application (i.e. CRM No.39550 of 2012) has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 200 days in

¶19

(204)

¶20

CRM No. 39550 of 2012 in/and CRMA No.528-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶21

[2]

¶22

filing the appeal.

¶23

Respondents No.2 to 4 were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur for committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (“IPC” - for short). They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, besides, pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 302/120B IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years, besides, pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶24

The appellant Krishan Kumar Kaura is the 'victim' as his son Raman Kumar was murdered by respondents No.2 to 4. It is submitted that the respondents No.2 to 4 acted in a most brutal and cold blooded conspiracy to commit not only the murder of the son of the appellant but at the same time committed another murder; besides, kidnapping a minor child in a very short span of time. They had even acted in a clever manner to conceal and destroy the evidence of their misdeeds. Respondents No.2 to 4, it is submitted, are highly depraved persons and have no regard or value for human life. Besides, they are a menace and danger to the society. Therefore, most stringent punishment is liable

¶25

(204)

¶26

CRM No. 39550 of 2012 in/and CRMA No.528-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶27

[3]

¶28

to be imposed.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 has

¶30

submitted that in terms of proviso to Section 372 Code of Criminal procedure (“CrPC” - for short) an appeal against inadequate sentence is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal is misconceived.

¶31

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.

¶32

Section 372 CrPC and its proviso reads as under:-

¶33

372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force:

¶34

[Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against

¶35

(204)

¶36

CRM No. 39550 of 2012 in/and CRMA No.528-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶37

[4]

¶38

the order of conviction of such Court.]”

¶39

A reading of the above provision shows that no appeal is to

¶40

lie from a judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by the CrPC or by any other law which authorizes an appeal. The provision thereto confers only a limited right to a 'victim' to file an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal is to lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Therefore, the limited right that the victim has, does not provide for assailing an order imposing inadequate sentence. This aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in National Commission of Women v. State of Delhi and another , 2010 (4)

¶41

RCR (Crl.) 758 in which it was held that the proviso does not envisage an appeal against inadequate sentence. It was held that such appeal would be maintainable only under Section 377 CrPC to the High Court as it is effectively challenging the quantum of sentence. In terms of Section 377 CrPC it is the State Government or the Central Government which can issue a direction to the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal before the Court of Session or the High Court on the ground of inadequacy of the sentence. Therefore, an appeal for enhancement of a sentence by a 'victim' would not be maintainable. In the circumstances, the question of

¶42

(204)

¶43

CRM No. 39550 of 2012 in/and CRMA No.528-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶44

[5]

¶45

delay of 200 days in filing the appeal is only academic.

¶46

For the foregoing reasons, the Crl. Misc. appeal and the Crl.

¶47

Misc. application seeking condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the appeal

are dismissed.

(S.S. SARON)

JUDGE

(S.P. BANGARH)

JUDGE

May 20, 2013

amit

Krishan Kumar Kaura v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar Kaura v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Vs Manju

Wassan Singh Vs Lakha Singh

P.S.T.Corporation Vs State of Punjab

State of Punjab Vs Salim Masih

Neelam and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ajay Vs Kusum