THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusNANDU @ NANDUA

                        [2022] 7 S.C.R. 487                              487


              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                A
                                  v.
                      NANDU @ NANDUA
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 1356 of 2022)
                       SEPTEMBER 02, 2022                                B
         [M. R. SHAH, JJ. AND KRISHNA MURARI]
       Sentence/Sentencing – ss.147,148,323 and 302/34 of IPC –
Reduction of sentence by the High Court – Proper or not – The
respondent-accused along with other accused was convicted for
                                                                         C
the offence punishable u/ss.147,148,323 and 302/34 of IPC and
was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial Court – High Court
maintained the conviction under aforesaid sections but reduced the
sentence to approximately seven years and ten months, the period
of sentence undergone by the respondent – State approached the
Supreme Court and submitted that the reduction in sentence is            D
contrary to s.302 IPC – On appeal, held: Though the High Court
has maintained the conviction of the respondent for the offence u/
s.302 IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to sentence
already undergone which is less than imprisonment for life, which
shall be contrary to s.302 IPC and is unsustainable – Judgment
                                                                         E
and order of High Court set aside – Judgment and order passed by
the trial Court restored.
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1356 of 2022.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2019 of the High Court      F
of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur in CRA No. 219 of 1995.
       Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Dy. AG, Gopal Jha, Amit Sharma, Advs.
for the Appellant.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                         G
      M. R. SHAH, J.
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in
Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1995 by which the High Court has partly
allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent - accused – Nandu
                                                                         H
                                  487
488            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     @ Nandua and has reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to the
      sentence already undertone while maintaining his conviction for the
      offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal
      Code (IPC), the State has preferred the present appeal.
           2. We have heard Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Deputy
B     Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant - State.
             3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Trial
      Court convicted the respondent - accused alongwith other accused for
      the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the
      IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. However, by the
C     impugned judgment and order, though the High Court has maintained
      the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148,
      323 and 302/34 of the IPC by giving benefit of right to private defence,
      the High Court has thereafter interfered with the sentence and reduced
      the same to the already undergone by him. At this stage, it is required to
      be noted that by the time, the High Court passed the impugned judgment
D     and order reducing the sentence, the period of sentence undergone by
      the respondent - accused was approximately seven years and ten months.
             4. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General
      appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that when
      the High Court has maintained the conviction of the accused for the
E     offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the punishment which can be
      imposed would be punishment with death or imprisonment for life and
      also fine, but in any case, it shall not be less than the imprisonment for
      life.
             4.1 It is vehemently submitted that once an accused is held to be
F     guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the minimum
      sentence, which is imposable would be the imprisonment for life and,
      therefore, any punishment/sentence less than the imprisonment for life
      shall be contrary to Section 302 of the IPC. It is submitted that therefore
      the High Court has committed a very serious error in reducing the sentence
G     to already undergone (seven years and ten months).
             5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      State and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the
      High Court by which though the High Court has maintained the conviction
      of the respondent - accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, but
      the High Court has reduced the sentence to already undergone, i.e.,
H
 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. NANDU @ NANDUA                                  489
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

seven years and ten months, we are of the firm view that the same is            A
impermissible and unsustainable. The punishment for murder under
Section 302 IPC shall be death or imprisonment for life and fine. Therefore,
the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine. There cannot be any
sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is
                                                                                B
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any
punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable
under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC. By the
impugned judgment and order though the High Court has specifically
maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC, but the High Court has reduced             C
the sentence to sentence already undergone which is less than
imprisonment for life, which shall be contrary to Section 302 IPC and is
unsustainable.
       6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High             D
Court reducing the sentence of the respondent – accused to the sentence
already undergone while maintaining the conviction of the respondent –
accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the
IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by
the learned Trial Court imposing the life imprisonment is hereby restored.
Now, the respondent – accused to be arrested and to undergo life                E
imprisonment for which we give eight weeks’ time to the accused to
surrender before the concerned Court/Jail Authority.

Ankit Gyan                                                    Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)                                           F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H