AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This State appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. is directed
against the judgment dated 08.07.2015 passed by the Special
Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh (''the trial court'') in Session
Case No.24/2009, whereby while convicting the respondent-
accused for offence under Section 3 / 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (''the Act''), the accused
has been awarded sentence of 3 months'' rigorous imprisonment
and Rs.500/- as fine.
The brief facts of the case are that on 04.07.2009, SHO, PS
Sangariya apprehended the respondent and recovered 17 grams
of smack from his possession. After undertaking procedure, the
challan was filed against the accused and on 06.10.2008, he was
charged with offences under Section 8 / 21 of the Act, which he
denied and claimed trial.
The prosecution produced three witnesses and exhibited
eight documents. When the statement of accused under Section
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he accepted having committed the
offence and prayed for early disposal of the case on account of his
physical condition.
The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the
conclusion that the respondent-accused was guilty of offence
under Section 8 / 21(b) of the Act. While awarding sentence, the
trial court noticed that it was the first offence of the accused,
there was no history of any grievous conviction and looking to his
physical condition, sentenced him to 3 months'' rigorous
imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.500/-. It was further
ordered that in default of payment of fine, he would further
undergo imprisonment for 5 more days.
Alleging the sentence awarded as inadequate, the present
appeal has been filed, which was admitted on 18.08.2015 and the
respondent-accused was summoned through bailable warrant and
when despite service of bailable warrant, the accused did not
appear, he was summoned through non-bailable warrant, which
was received back with the report that the respondent-accused
was bedridden.
The SHO, PS Sangariya was directed to visit the respondent
and make an inquiry and give a detailed report of his illness.
The SHO pursuant to the directions of this Court, has
submitted his report to the effect that the respondent was
bedridden and is not in a position to move and the financial condition of the family was very poor. In view of the said report,
the warrant of arrest was recalled.
It is submitted by learned public prosecutor that the trial
court committed error in awarding lesser sentence to the accused
though he was found guilty of the offence under Section 8 / 21(b)
of the Act. The reasons indicated by the trial court are not
sufficient and, therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial court
be enhanced.
Learned amicus curiae submitted that the trial court has
recorded sufficient reasons for awarding sentence to the
respondent-accused and, therefore, the sentence does not call for
any enhancement. It was submitted that though initially the
respondent denied the charge and claimed trial, at the time of his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has admitted the charge
as on account of his physical condition, he wanted disposal of the
proceedings expeditiously. Further submissions were made that
from the report submitted by the SHO, it is apparent that the
respondent has suffered fracture of his spinal cord and is totally
confined to bed and, therefore, in those circumstances also, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
It is well settled that quantum of sentence can be interfered
with when failure to impose proper sentence results in miscarriage
of justice and the sentence is manifestly inadequate or unduly
lenient in a particular case.
The trial court while awarding sentence has specifically given
out the reasons that the present was the first offence of the
accused, there was no previous conviction, he had confessed to
the offence and that he was suffering from serious disease and,
consequently, awarded the sentence. The report, which was
received from the SHO under the directions of this Court indicates
that the respondent is suffering from fracture in the spinal cord
and is confined to bed. The SHO has further reported that even for
going to bathroom, he requires support and cannot move around.
In view of the above circumstances, the reasons recorded by
the trial court for awarding the sentence, cannot be said to be not
germane and in peculiar facts of the case the sentence also cannot
be said to be inadequate so as to require interference in the
present appeal.
In view of the facts and circumstances noticed hereinbefore,
no case for enhancement of sentence is made out. There is no
substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.