Del HC: Can’t Exclude Govt. Servants from Protection of Fundamental Rights  ||  Ker. HC: Out-of-Turn Disposals Can Cause Injustice to Other Litigants  ||  Ker. HC Lays Down Principles for Compounding Sexual offences Upon Compromise With Accused  ||  SC Grants Interim Bail to Satyender Jain on Medical Grounds in PMLA Case  ||  Del HC: No Indefeasible Right of Daughter-in-Law in Shared Household  ||  Del. HC to State: Hold Stakeholder Consultation on Draft Advocates Protection Bill  ||  JKL HC: All Water Sources are Property of Government  ||  Delhi HC: Injunctions Must Not be Granted in Public Work Projects  ||  JKL HC: Authority Must Inform Detenue Time in Which he Can Make Representation Against Detention  ||  JKL HC: Rejection Of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Can’t be Challenged    

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


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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved