NDLI: State of Rajasthan Vs. Banwari Lal and Another

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Conviction of accused-B by the trial Court for the offence u/s.307 IPC for having caused serious injuries on the vital part of the body of the victim/injured
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Appeal by State: Conviction of accused-B by the trial Court for the offence u/s.307 IPC for having caused serious injuries on the vital part of the body of the victim/injured – Trial Court sentenced accused-B to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment – In an appeal before the High Court, the accused did not challenge the conviction, but only prayed the Court to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him by submitting that occurrence took place about 26 years ago; that they were facing trial since then; and when the occurrence took place, they were young and now they are aged persons – High Court, without any detailed analysis of the facts of the case, nature of injuries caused, weapon used, simply reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (44 days) – Held: The manner in which the High Court dealt with the appeal and has reduced the sentence, without adverting to the relevant facts and without considering the gravity and nature of offence, is unsustainable – High Court has dealt with the appeal in a most casual and cavalier manner – The judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the sentence is nothing but an instance of travesty of justice and against all the principles of law on imposing appropriate punishment/suitable punishment – As per s.307 IPC, whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as mentioned in s.307 IPC – In the instant case, accused-B could have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and/or at least up to ten years – Trial court sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment – Therefore, as such, trial court already took a very lenient view while imposing the sentence of only three years’ rigorous imprisonment – Therefore, High Court ought not to have interfered with the same – Merely because a long period lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate – High Court did not at all advert to the relevant factors while imposing appropriate/suitable punishment/sentence – The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the appeal is highly deprecated – Penal Code, 1860 – s.307 – Judicial deprecation. Appeal: Appeal preferred by the State against order of probation passed in favour of accused-M – Trial court granted benefit of probation to accused-M, against which the State did not prefer any appeal before the High Court and it was the accused who preferred appeal, which came to be dismissed – State ought not to have preferred the instant appeal against the accused-M, when his appeal before the High Court was dismissed and the conviction was confirmed – If the State was aggrieved against granting the benefit of probation, in that case, in the first instance, the State ought to have preferred an appeal before the High Court. Appeal: Delay on part of State in filing appeal – Condonation of – Plea by accused that they have resettled in their lives and have not indulged in any criminal activity and therefore, substantial delay on part of State in filing appeal should not be condoned – Held: Merely on the technical ground of delay and merely on the ground that the accused have resettled in their lives and their conduct has since been satisfactory and they have not indulged in any criminal activity, is no ground not to condone the delay and not to consider the appeal on merits – The delay of 1880 days in preferring appeal is condoned.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 410
Petitioner	State Of Rajasthan
Respondent	Banwari Lal And Another
SCR	[2022] 5 S.C.R. 613
Judgement Date	2022-04-08
Case Number	579

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

State of Rajasthan Vs. Banwari Lal and Another

Please Log-in to view this content

B. Vishwanath Vs. State of Karnataka

Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Sakharam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &anr.

The State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanhaiya Lal

Panney @ Pratap Narain Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Jabar Singh Vs. State of M.p.

The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kanha @ Omprakash

Balu @ Bala Subramaniam & Anr. Vs. State (u.t. of Pondicherry)

Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana

State of Rajasthan Vs. Banwari Lal and Another

State of Rajasthan Vs. Banwari Lal and Another

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

B. Vishwanath Vs. State of Karnataka

Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Sakharam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &anr.

The State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanhaiya Lal

Panney @ Pratap Narain Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Jabar Singh Vs. State of M.p.

The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kanha @ Omprakash

Balu @ Bala Subramaniam & Anr. Vs. State (u.t. of Pondicherry)

Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana

State of Rajasthan Vs. Banwari Lal and Another