Supreme Court: Detailed Appreciation of Evidence is Not Allowed at the Bail Stage  ||  SC: Defunct Scheme under the Companies Act Cannot Stall the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process  ||  SC: Once Unlawful Assembly is Proved U/S 149 IPC, Individual Role in Fatal Injury is Irrelevant  ||  Supreme Court: Voluntary Confession Qualifies as Substantive Evidence under the Customs Act  ||  Supreme Court: Mere Pendency of Restructuring Arrangements Cannot Stall the CIRP under IBC  ||  Gujarat HC: Unregistered Nikahnama or Missing Records Cannot Bar a Widow From Claiming Pension  ||  Delhi HC: Merely Breaking Up a Relationship Does Not Amount to Instigation For Abetment of Suicide  ||  Madras HC: Doctors Aren’t Regular Staff; Hospitals Cannot Stop Them From Joining Other Hospitals  ||  Supreme Court: Landowners Are Not Liable For Delays Caused by Developers  ||  Supreme Court: Illegality in a Search Does Not Invalidate the Evidence Collected    

Maila vs. The State - (23 Jan 2023)

Sentencing or punishment is pre-eminently a matter of discretion of the trial court, A court exercising appellate jurisdiction cannot, interfere in the absence of a material misdirection

Criminal

In present case, the Appellant was convicted of the rape of his 9-year-old niece and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Regional Court. The issues for determination is whether the Appellant was properly convicted on the evidence of a single witness; and whether the trial court correctly admitted the warning statement – which was illegally obtained – and in which he incriminated himself.

The regional Court was correct to accept the evidence of the complainant as satisfactory in all material respects. Thus, the appellant was properly convicted on the evidence of a single witness. With regard to the appellant’s version, the SCA found that there were improbabilities in the appellant’s version in general and, in particular, his alibi. As a result, the evidence, when viewed in its totality and excluding the warning statement of the appellant, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction had to fail.

It is trite that sentencing or punishment is pre-eminently a matter of discretion of the trial court. A court exercising appellate jurisdiction cannot, in the absence of a material misdirection by the trial court, approach the question of sentence as if it were the trial court and then substitute the sentence arrived at by it simply because it prefers it. To do so would be to usurp the sentencing discretion of the trial court.

The regional magistrate did not commit any misdirection in imposing the prescribed sentence of life imprisonment. The regional court had regard to the basic triad of sentencing; it noted the following as aggravating circumstances: the Appellant was the complainant’s maternal uncle and in a position of trust – who is ‘supposed to protect and love’ the complainant and not abuse her; and it took into account the seriousness of the offence and the prevalence of rape in the region. There were no compelling and substantial circumstances to justify a lesser sentence. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved