This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Where the accused is found guilty, the judgment would also include an order requiring the accused to undergo the prescribed punishment or treatment. Judgment means the expression of the opinion of the judge or Magistrate arrived at after due consideration of the evidence and the arguments.1 Judgment means a judgment of conviction or acquittal, but not an order of discharge u/s 245.2 A judgment is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and the world at large by formal "pronouncement" or "delivery" in open court.3 Form and contents In this connection Section 354 makes the following provisions: A. Every judgment shall be written in the language of the court; and according to Section 272, the language of the court is determined by the State Government. B. Every judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Usually the judgment in a criminal case should commence with a statement of facts in respect of which the accused person is charged. The judgment should indicate a careful analysis and appraisal of the evidence while reaching the conclusions regarding the proof of the facts.4 The judgment must be self contained and show that the Magistrate /Judge have applied his mind to the facts and the evidence. No judgment can be regarded as a considered judgment unless the reasons for accepting one and rejecting the other of the two viewpoints are clearly mentioned in the judgment. 5 Moreover the
Danu Senapati v. Sridhar Rajwar ,1893 21 Cal 121,127 Dwarka Nath v. Beni Madhab,(1901) 28 Cal 625 3 Sodawala v. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 3 SCC 140: 1974 SCC (Cri) 764 at p. 771: 1974 Cri IJ 1291: SunauJm Singh v. State of U.P AIR 1954 SC 194: 1954 Cri LJ 475. 4 Ram Karan v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Supp SCC 604; State (Delhi Admn.) v. Shiv Kumar, 1990 Supp SCC 673; State of U.P. v. Jagdish Singh, 1990 Supp SCC 150
final order deciding a case must be self contained and should be what is called a speaking Order.6An order of discharge is not a judgment and no reasons in writing are necessary where such an order is passed but it is desirable that the magistrate should record the reasons for discharge.7 In case of a sexual offence the name of the victim is not to be mentioned.8 C. Every judgment shall specify the offence (if any) of which and the section of the IPC or other law under which, the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced. When the conviction is under the Indian Penal Code and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under which of two parts of the same section, of that Code the offence falls, the court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative.9 D. If the judgment is one of acquittal, it shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty. Even when an accused person is acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind,
the judgment should, as enjoined by Sec. 334 Cr.P.C, record a finding whether such accused committed the acts (such as causing the death by stabbing or other means) attributed to him. In such a case the court shall not forthwith set him at liberty or release him from custody. He will have to be directed to be detained in a Government mental health centre or ordered to be delivered to any relative or friend upon an application by such relative or friend his is because of the homicidal accused. to or dangerous propensities and on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the court as provided under Sec. 335 Cr.P.C. This already exhibited by the subject Such accused ordered to be detained in the mental health center will be
further orders of the State Government under Sec. 339 Cr.P.C.10
Judgment in abridged forms
Ismail Amirshaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 Cri LJ 273 (Bom HC). Also see State of Punjab v. Jagdeo Singh Talwandi, (1984) 1 SCC 596: 1984 SCC (Cri) 135: 1984 Cri LJ 177; Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 SCC (Cri) 296; Badri v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 521: 1995 SCC (Cri) 990. 6 Balwant Rai v. Chhangi Ram ,AIR 1963 Punj 124 7 Nabi Fakira,(1907) 9 Bom LR 1110 8 S.Ramakrishna v. State ,AIR 2009 SC 885 9 Section 354(2) 10 Sheela v. State of Kerala - 2005 KHC 2079 and Hussain v. State of Kerala - 2005 (3) KLJ 12 = ILR 2005 (4) Kerala 239
the final order. the name of the accused person. the date of the commission of the offence. 235(2). ix. . the name of the complainant if any. This section lays down that the metropolitan magistrate need not write the detailed judgments provided in the presiding section but should only record the particular set out in this section. iv. the serial number of the case. it has to punish the accused in accordance with law after hearing him. Clause (1) however makes it obligatory on the part of the metropolitan magistrate to give brief statement of the reasons for his decision in all cases in which an appeal lies. iii. 255(2).11 However. the date of such order. and to the circumstances in 11 See Ss. v. 2) Post Conviction Orders In every criminal trial. antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender. a brief statement of reasons for the decision. viii. when the court finds the accused guilty. The judgment given in a summary trial is also to be recorded in a similar abridged form as prescribed by Sections 263-264. character. having regard to the age. 248(2). the offence complained of or proved. the plea of the accused and his examination (if any). in all cases in which an appeal lies from the final order either u/s 373 or under subsection (3) of section 374 .1) According to Section 355 the judgment given by a Metropolitan Magistrate shall be in an abridged form giving the following particulars only: i. vii. ii. and his parentage and residence. vi.
15 An analysis of Section 360 will bring out the following points: - Release on probation of good conduct 13 See Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Probation of Offenders Bill. some statutory guidelines have been given to courts by Sections 360. 1958. release him after admonition or on probation of good conduct under Section 360 of the Code or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Section 360 is intended to be used to prevent young persons from being committed to jail. 1957. because of paramount need for the protection of society. It is not intended that this section should be applied to experienced men of the world who deliberately flout the law and commit offences. might be expected to be good citizens.13 It is not easy to reconcile these conflicting demands. 723-24 12 . there has been an increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender as a useful and self-reliant member of society without subjecting him to the deleterious effects of jail life.which the offence was committed.14 While exercising the discretion in respect of post-conviction orders. As has been rightly observed by the Supreme Court. para 10: 3. on probation of good conduct. 1958. but for such lapses. who may lead them further along the path of crime. State ofAndhra Pradesh. 361 and the Probation of Offenders Act. 14 Ediga Anamma v. 1974 SCO (Cri) 479 at p. In recent times. or inadvertence or the bad influence of others and who. It enables the court. the consideration of rehabilitation has to give way. and to help even men of more mature years who for the first time may have committed crimes through ignorance. the punitive dilemma begins. where they may associate with hardened criminals. Titus. under certain circumstances. at p. to release the accused. who has been convicted. AIR 1941 Mad 720 at pp. 85. guilt once established. In such cases. 485: 1974 Cri IJ 683 15 In re.12 On the other hand there are occasions when an offender is so antisocial that his immediate and sometimes prolonged confinement is the best assurance of society's protection. See the observations of the Law Commission of India in its 47th Report on "The Trial and Punishment of Social and Economic Offences". Section 360 This section is a beneficial piece of legislation. the court may instead of sentencing the accused person to any punishment.
Having regard to the age. the offence of which the accused is convicted is either (A) theft. . can release an offender on probation as mentioned above. if the court convicting the accused person considers it expedient to release the offender on probation of good conduct (instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment). character or antecedents of the offender. or any male person under twenty-one years of age. Such a release is permissible only if the following conditions are satisfied: • • there is no previous conviction proved against the accused person. release him after due admonition. and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. with or without sureties. or (C) dishonest misappropriation. or (E) is one punishable with fine only. antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed. (B) theft in a building. if such a Magistrate considers that the offender should be so released. to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the court may fix and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior. the offence of which he or she is convicted is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or • when the person convicted is not under twenty-one years of age. No Magistrate of the second class. it may direct the offender to be released on his entering into a bond. or (D) is punishable under the IPC with not more than two years imprisonment. unless he is specially empowered. Release after admonition Having regard to the age. the offence of which he is convicted is punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less. however. character. the court may. after convicting the accused person. Such a release is permissible only if the following conditions are satisfied: • • there is no previous conviction proved against the offender and when the person convicted is a woman of any age. he may transfer the case to a Magistrate of the first class who may thereupon take such action as is appropriate as to sentencing the offender or releasing him on probation.
1958 (20 of 1958). 1958 read with Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act. passes any sentence of imprisonment. 1983 KLT 811. or 16 17 See section 360(10) State of Kerala v. According to Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.Section 360. the offender can be still released after admonition or on probation of good conduct under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act which is wider in its scope than the provisions of Section 360. and if the Court. 1897. No imprisonment in case of young offenders The discretion given to the court in passing post-conviction orders has been restricted to some extent in favour of young offenders below 21 years of age. Where in any case the court could have dealt with(a) An accused person under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of offenders Act. Chellappan George.16 According to Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act. after such satisfaction. it shall record reasons for doing so. 1958. . Special directive in favor of non-punitive measures The discretion to sentence a convicted person to any punishment has been narrowed down by Section 361 states 361. itself makes it quite clear that it shall not affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. it shall not sentence him to imprisonment without satisfying itself that it would not be desirable to release the offender after admonition or on probation of good conduct. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases. In that case also the court will have to use discretion on the same lines as in cases under Section 360. 17 However. if the court finds such young offender guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life). Section 360 of the Code would cease to apply to the States or parts thereof in which the Probation of Offenders Act is brought into force.
C.20 Judicial discretion in sentencing If the convicted person is not released after admonition or on probation of good conduct as mentioned above. - To insure that such provisions should be used frequently. 255(2) . no reasons are required to be given. 248(2). such as. imprisonment for life.P. and it is for the court to decide the suitable kind of punishment to be imposed in a particular case. but has not done so. death. Provision of section 361 was mandatory. 235(2).361. The penal law often prescribes for an offence two or more kinds of punishments as cumulative or alternative punishments.21 There are different kinds of punishments provided by the Indian Penal Code and other laws. forfeiture of property. Further.1989 CrLJ NOC 70(Raj) 21 See Ss. it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so. supplements the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.1990 CrLJ 723 (HP) 20 Leela v. State of Rajasthan . The court must comply with the provisions of section 360.19 - Provisions of Section 361 are mandatory. 1958 and there is no conflict between CrPC and The Probation of Offenders act Section. the penal laws normally prescribe the maximum punishment awardable in respect of an 18 19 Reepik Ravinder v.1960(Now Juvenile (Care and Protection of children) Act. Lat Singh . - Where the juvenile offender had committed rape and was convicted sentence awarded of rigorous punishment for 10 years was held not to be proper.1991 CrLJ 595(AP) State of Himachal Pradesh v. the court shall (in case of serious offences after hearing him on the question of sentence) pass sentence upon him according to law. training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. etc. like 'death or imprisonment for life'.2000 or any other similar laws only rarely. imprisonment (rigorous or simple).18 - Section 361 of the Cr. courts are now required to give reasons in their judgments for not applying the provisions of those special laws whenever they are applicable.State of Andhra Pradesh. 1960 (60 of 1960). However when the nature of offence is such that it could not be dealt with by special laws. fine. or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment. - This section was inserted in the new code as it was observed that the courts used those statutory provisions incorporated in the Probation of Offenders Act.(b) A youthful offender under the Children Act. suo moto.1958 or the Children Act. 'imprisonment or/and fine'.
. The word 'hear' has been used to give an opportunity to the accused to place before the court the various circumstances having a bearing on the question of sentence. (1977) 3 SCC 218. the court can call for the report of the Probation Officer and the officer would then be under a duty— 22 23 Santa Singh v.25 The non-compliance with the requirement of Section 235(2) or Section 248(2) amounts to bypassing an important stage of the trial and cannot be considered as a mere irregularity in the course of the trial curable under Section 465. J. the prospects for his rehabilitation and return to a normal life in the community. in a trial before a Court of Session or in a trial of warrant case by a Magistrate. if any. deterrent. However in our processual system there is neither comprehensive provision nor adequate machinery for collection and presentation of the social and personal data of the culprit to the extent required in the verdict of the sentence. his emotional and mental condition. the possibility of treatment or training of the offender. 485: 1974 Cri LJ 683. sobriety and social adjustment. (1994) 2 SCC 220 at p. State of W. State of A.23 Modern penology regards crime and criminal as equally material when the right sentence has to be picked out. 25 Tarlok Singh v. A proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of the offence. State of Punjab. the circumstances—extenuating or aggravating—of the offence. It may also be noted that wherever the Probation of Offenders Act is applicable. if any. and retributive theories of punishment. 24 Ediga Anamma v. (1974) 4 SCC 443: 1974 SCC (Cri) 479 at p.offence and then leave it to the court to decide the appropriate sentence for the offence in a particular case subject to the maximum limit prescribed by the law. home life. 239. These are factors which have to be taken into account by the court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence. his record as to employment.B.P. The question as to how the judicial discretion in sentencing should be exercised is a complex problem. Its solution requires a working compromise between the competing views based on reformative. preventive.22 The measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime. is found guilty. See Dhananjay Chatterjee v. for such deterrent sentence in respect to the particular type of offence. . per Bhagwati. his age and educational background. 550.24 The Code no doubt provides by Sections 235(2) and 248(2) that if the accused. the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need. the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim. the prior criminal record. the court or Magistrate shall 'hear' the accused on the question of sentence and then pass sentence on him according to law. of the offender. State of Punjab. (1976) 4 SCC 190: 1976 SCC (Cri) 546 at p..
1958 Ambaram v. But a few may be indicated : such as the crime has been committed by a professional or hardened criminal or it has been committed in a very brutal manner or on a helpless child or a woman or the like. with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years. see also Balwant Singh v.”26 The report of the Probation Officer would be of considerable importance in making appropriate sentencing decisions. Dalbir Singh v. and submit reports to the court. will warrant the passing of the death sentence. in accordance with any directions of a court. (1977) 3 SCC 280: 1977 SCC (Cri) 486: 1977 Cri LJ 1449..—where death is one of the alternative punishments prescribed for an offence. 489-490: 1974 Cri LJ 683. the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead [S. Decisions as to specific punishments (1) Sentence to death. State of W. Further. the discretion given to the court assumes onerous importance and its exercise becomes extremely difficult particularly because of the irrevocable character of the death penalty. State of Punjab.. supra note 17: Bishnu Deo Shaw v. (1974) 4 SCC 443: 1974 SCC (Cri) 479 at pp. State of Punjab. 597.P. State of M. State of Punjab29 See Section 14 of The Probation of Offenders Act. 45.P. State of Goa. Joseph v.. only special facts and circumstances in a given case. in the alternative. 29 1980 2 SCC 684 26 27 . the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded and in the case of sentence of death. see also Barhan Singh v. (1979) 3 SCC 817: 1979 SCC (Cri) 817 at p. (1976) 1 SCC 425: 1976 SCC (Cri) 43.B.27 It is not possible to make a catalogue of the special reasons which may justify the passing of the death sentence.“to inquire. State of A. State ofM. the special reasons for such sentence. State of Punjab. 855. when any person is sentenced to death. (1979) 3 SCC 727 28 Balwant Singh v. (1979) 3 SCC 745: 1979 SCC (Cri) 848 at p. that is to say. Joseph.. 828.P. Ediga Anamma v. (1976) 4 SCC 298: 1976 SCC (Cri) 610: 1976 Cri LJ 1716.28 - The supreme Court observed in the case of Bachan Singh v. Sarveswar Prasad Sharma v. (1976) 1 SCC 425: 1976 SCC (Cri) 43 at p. into the circumstances or home surroundings of any person accused of an offence with a view to assist the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with him. (1977) 4 SCC 322: 1977 SCC (Cri) 596 at p. Section 354(3) requires that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or. State of Punjab. 354(5)]. It would thus appear from Section 354(3) above that the sentence of death may be awarded only for special reasons.
This is so because 'style is the 'man'. and (d) of the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill passed in 1978 by the Rajya Sabha.S. More often than not. (c). And it is only when the culpability assumes the proportion of extreme depravity that "special reasons" can legitimately be said to exist. it is quite clear to us that for making the choice of punishment or for ascertaining the existence or absence of "special reasons" in that context. or (c) if the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of a member of any police force or of any public servant and was committed (i) while such member or public servant was on duty. these two aspects are so intertwined that it is difficult to give a separate treatment to each of them. it is not desirable to consider the circumstances of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal in two separate water-tight compartments.“As we read Sections 354(3) and 235(2) and other related provisions of the Code of 1973. or (ii) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such member or public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty as such member or public servant whether at the time of murder he 30 33 L Ed 2d 346 . in particular. and Clauses 2(a). In many cases. That is why. the Court must pay due regard both to the crime and the criminal. to kill is to be cruel and therefore all murders are cruel. Chitale has suggested these "aggravating circumstances": Aggravating circumstances: A Court may.A. or (b) if the murder involves exceptional depravity. depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. But such cruelty may vary in its degree of culpability. framed after Furman v. In a sense. in general. in the following cases impose the penalty of death in its discretion: (a) if the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality. the extremely cruel or beastly manner of the commission of murder is itself a demonstrated index of the depraved character of the perpetrator. What is the relative weight to be given to the aggravating and mitigating factors. however. Drawing upon the penal statutes of the States in U. (b). Dr. Georgia 30.
and fourthly. there being infinite. degree of culpability cannot be measured in each case. Firstly.was such member or public servant.. criminal cases cannot be categorized. or (d) if the murder is of a person who had acted in the lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 of the CrPC. it seems that the court has been limiting the number of death sentence by evolving what is called ‘rarest of rare cases ‘Only in the rarest of rare cases do the courts award death penalty31 - On the question of standardization of sentence according to degree of culpability and aggravating and mitigating circumstances. (1991) 3 SCC 471: Juman Khan v. or had ceased to be such member or public servant. the Supreme Court observed as follows Regarding the question of laying down standards and norms restricting the area of imposition of death penalty. Union of India.matter belonging to the legislature beyond the court's function. AIR 1963SC 1115 . we would prefer not to fetter judicial discretion by attempting to make an exhaustive enumeration one way or the other” - Though the Supreme court has refused to fetter its discretion. 1973.P.21 of the constitution as being perspective of cruel punishment. secondly. it is meant that 'murder' should be categorized beforehand according to the degrees of its culpability and all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances should be exhaustively and rigidly enumerated so as to exclude all free play of discretion. The Supreme Court however held that the section was valid. State of T. such standardization or sentencing discretion is a policy. the sentencing process will cease to be judicial.N.2001 CrLJ 725 33 Deena v. or who had rendered assistance to a Magistrate or a police officer demanding his aid or requiring his assistance under Section 37 and Section 129 of the said Code. the argument merits rejection.Chaman v.32 The validity of clause 5 of section 354 was challenged on the ground that it was volatile of Art. State of U. as the case may be. there can be no objection to the acceptance of these indicators but as we have indicated already.. thirdly. if by "laying down standards". (1991) 3 SCC 752 Mohd. Such standardization is well-nigh impossible.33 31 32 Sevaka Perianal v. State (NCT of Delhi). Stated broadly. on such categorization. unpredictable and unforeseeable variations.
State ofU..The decision of the trial court awarding the sentence of death is not final unless it is confirmed by the High Court. and convict the accused of any offence of which the Court of Session might have convicted him. 810. For this purpose the trial court is required to make a reference to the High Court. (1975) 3 SCC 39: 1974 SCC (Cri) 735 at p. (c) However. and the sentence is not to be executed unless and until it is confirmed by the High Court [S.35 Considering the irrevocable character of the death penalty it is vitally important that a thorough scrutiny of the decision of the trial court is made by the High Court as a necessary precaution against any possible mistake of the trial court in reaching that decision. The provision regarding reference is applicable irrespective of the appeal that may be filed by the accused person. or May acquit the accused person. 366(1)]. Time and again the Supreme Court has pointed out that the proceedings upon reference for confirmation of death sentence are a continuation of the trial on the same evidence or additional evidence. (1976) 1 SCC 172: 1975 SCC (Cri) 803 at p. until such appeal is disposed of (Section 368). or if an appeal is presented within such period.P. 367(1)] The reference case is to be heard by the Bench of Judges and the confirmation of the death sentence is to be made by a majority constituted by two or more Judges. no order of confirmation shall be made until the period allowed for preferring an appeal has expired. 34In any case submitted by the Court of Session for confirmation of the sentence of death. the High Court— (a) may confirm the sentence or pass any other sentence warranted by law. 392. it may make such inquiry or take such evidence itself or direct it to be made or taken by the Court of Session. 743: 1974 Cri LJ 1253 35 . If the High Court in the reference proceedings thinks that a further inquiry should be made or additional evidence should be taken regarding any point bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the convicted person.] Kartarey v. 34 [See Ss. State of Punjab. Charan Singh v. or order a new trial on the same or an amended charge. 369 and 370 read with S. it is the duty of the High Court to reappraise the entire evidence and consider the proceedings in all their aspects and then come to an independent conclusion on the merits of the case. or (b) may annul the conviction. Therefore. [S.
AIR 1960 Punj 482 . in the least. That where anything which is an offence is made up of parts. unless it be so expressly provided 2. the harm caused to the victim. a 36 Lekh Raj v. for the several offences for which the accused is guilty. the motive of the offender.(2) Sentence of imprisonment. the total quantum of punishment for all such offences shall be determined according to the provisions of Section 31. constitute.—Generally the penal laws prescribe the maximum term of imprisonment awardable in respect of an offence.36 Therefore. any of which parts is itself an offence. In exercising the -discretion in awarding a suitable term of imprisonment in a given case. subject to provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code. It may also be noted that the Code as a policy is not in favour of short terms of imprisonment being imposed on the offenders. That Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished. the circumstances in which the offence was committed. It brands a person as a previous convict without affording him the advantage of living a disciplined life in a jail for a sufficiently long time. Short-term imprisonment does not serve any useful purpose." When an accused person is convicted of several offences at one trial. or where several acts. unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the court or unless the case was tried summarily under the provisions of this Code. Section 354(4) provides: "When the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more. with a view to discourage short terms of imprisonment. except in very exceptional circumstances. The Court may pass separate sentences. character and antecedents of the offender. of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence. The law does not. In a case of consecutive sentences the convicted person is not to be sentenced for a total term of imprisonment exceeding 14 years in the aggregate. the age. prescribe the minimum term of imprisonment that the court must. but the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months. Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code provides 1. when combined. the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences. etc. it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence. State . award for an offence. the court takes into consideration several factors such as the gravity of the offence. It sometimes proves more harmful to the accused. The court may order such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to run either consecutively or concurrently. The aggregate punishment in such a case is also not to exceed twice the amount of punishment which the court is competent to inflict for a single offence.
rigorous imprisonment and Rs 5000 imposed by the Kerala High Court with an amount of Rs.—usually fines are prescribed as punishments for offences which are not of serious type. The Supreme Court has of late shown the trend of awarding fine/compensation in place of imprisonment or imprisonment with fine and insisting for revival of the original punishment in cases of failure to pay fine/compensation. which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may be sentenced (Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code). In such circumstances Section 427 empowers the court to decide as to whether the subsequent sentence of imprisonment shall commence after expiry of the previous sentence or whether it shall run concurrently with the previous one.different offence. Usually the law prescribes the maximum limit to which the fine may extend. It has been reiterated that unless specifically mentioned by the court. the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences Also there may be situations where a person who is already undergoing a term of imprisonment is again convicted in a different trial by the same court or by any other court for an offence or offences.37 The sentences which a Magistrate or a Judge is competent to pass have been mentioned in Sections 28 and 29. (3) Sentence of fine. 1997CriLJ 1413 1994 3SCC 430 .state of Harayana. In case of some offences it is prescribed as an alternative to or in addition to any other punishment prescribed for the offence. In Jacob Geoge v State of Kerala38the Supreme Court substituted the punishment of 4 years. the minimum is not normally fixed. It has been specifically provided that where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend. but shall not be excessive (Section 63 of the Indian Penal Code). 100000 and a condition that in case of failure of the Kerala HC sentence will revive. (A) The term for which the court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for 37 38 Nathu Ram Bansal v. While imposing the sentence of fine the court may direct that in default of payment of fine the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term. the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited. The court while exercising the discretion in fixing the amount may take into consideration several circumstances including the financial condition of the accused person. sentences shall not be allowed to run concurrently.
Table at p. two months. it is essential that the term of such imprisonment— - is not in excess of the powers of the Magistrate under Section 29 of the Code. See Lecture 2. if the amount of fine is up to Rs 50. 215. if the imprisonment in default of payment of fine is awarded by a Magistrate. 41 See S. exceed onefourth of the term of imprisonment which the Magistrate is competent to inflict as punishment for the offence otherwise than as imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.—In order to prevent the commission of certain offences42 provisions have been made to enable the authorities to keep a watch on the whereabouts of persons indulging in such crimes. 489-B. S. State of Kerala. robber. [S. and 3. if the amount of fine is up to Rs 100. 16. 39 40 . S. 489-A. where imprisonment has been awarded as part of the substantive sentence. 65 of the Penal Code. 67 of the Penal Code.39 Further. if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine. (1994) 3 SCC 430. 489-C. While passing any sentence on any habitual thief. four months. S. cheat. in any other case.) v. (2) Preventive measure against the risk of breach of peace. the imprisonment in default of payment of fine shall be simple. etc. [S.. six months. the court may require under Section 356 that the whereabouts of such an offender shall be notified in the prescribed manner for a period extending up to five years from the date of his release. and the term of such imprisonment shall not exceed— 1. S. 30(2)] (B) - If the offence is punishable with fine only.41 Precautionary and preventive orders (1) Order requiring habitual offenders to notify their whereabouts. counterfeiter of coins and currency notes. 30(1)] The imprisonment awarded by a Magistrate as above-mentioned may be in addition to a substantive sentence of imprisonment for the maximum term awardable by the magistrate under Section 29.40 shall not. But see Jacob George (Dr. 489-D and also by Chapters XII and XVII of the Penal Code. burglar.—When a Court of Session or a court of a Magistrate of the first class convicts a person of an offence involving breach of the See S.the offence. 2. 42 These offences are covered by S.
in the opinion.43 the court may. compensation to the persons who are. before the decision of the appeal. criminal breach of trust or cheating. 1855 (13 of 1855) entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death. 106] Compensation and costs Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure (1) When a court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part. any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of shelf all offence. in paying in. 153-A. or if an. the court may. of the court. [See S. under the Fatal Accidents Act.peace. recoverable by such person in a Civil Court. or of having dishonestly received or retained. (b) In the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence. (c) When. order the offender to give security for keeping the peace for a specified period not exceeding three years. misappropriation. which is subject to appeal. 106 are—offences punishable under Chapter VII of the IPC other than those punishable under Ss. 43 Such offences refened to in S. any offence of criminal intimidation or one . when compensation is. or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto. criminal. (2) If the fine is imposed in a case. appeal be presented. any offence consisting of or including assault or using criminal force or ^committing mischief. when passing judgment order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied(a) In defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution. 153-B or 154. no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal his elapsed. in addition to the sentence that it may award for the offence. (d) When any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft.
bears the heading "Order To Pay Compensation".C. 1898). kamal Law House.45 The power of the courts to award compensation under sec 357 is not ancillary to other sentences but is an addition thereto. (5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter. p. Sukhbir Singh.(3) When a court imposes a sentence. Act of 1974. 2127 at p.44 Section 357 Cr. Code of Criminal Procedure. 46 Hari Krishan and State of Haryana v. 2011. pg.PC. the court may. Comments The present section provides for award of expenses or compensation to the prosecution or other person ‘out of’ the fine levied on the accused. Kolkata.B. It is a measure to responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. 24th September.46 Discretion of criminal courts: it is purely within the discretion of the criminal courts to order or not to order payment of compensation and in practice they are not particularly liberal in utilizing this provision. by way of compensation such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury reason of the act for which the accused person his been so sentenced. when passing judgment order the accused person to pay. The new sub section (3) provides for payment of compensation even in cases where the fine does not form a part of the sentence. 1. 1887 45 Sawaran Singh v. (4) An order under this section may also be made by all Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. 47 Law commission of India. 41st report (Cr. AIR 1988 S. of which fine does not form a part. 2131. 356 .C. the court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.47 44 B. Vol. State AIR 1978 SC 1525.Mitra. In Sub-section (1) the power of the Court to utilize a portion of the fine imposed for the purpose of compensating any person for any loss or injury caused by the offence.1969. 21st edition.2011.P.
Such an order could have been passed only in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 357. Sub-section (3). otherwise no direction under clause(a) can be made. State of Punjab. such amount as may be specified in the order.C. merely empowers the Court when it imposes a sentence of which fine does not form a part.. i. wherein. no order for compensation can be passed u/s 357 of CrPC. to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. the same can be realized as fine in terms of Section 421 of the Code. Ltd. by way of compensation. Dahanukar v. Sadanandan K.. Vijayan Vs.P.- No order for compensation to passed on conviction: when an accused is discharged or when no fine is imposed. 1742. - In Dilip S. while considering the difference between the provisions of Section 357(1)(b) and Section 357(3) Cr.e.48 - Compensation can be directed to be paid both in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also Sub-section (3) thereof. the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment. and Anr 2009CriLJ2957 50 MANU/SC/1803/2007: 2007CriLJ2417 . If the compensation directed to be paid by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sub-section (3) of Section 357 Cr. no direction can be issued that in default to pay the amount of compensation. 1982 CrLJ. is not deposited. However. whereas Sub-section (3) is applicable in a situation where the Court imposes a sentence of which fine does not form a part of the sentence 48 49 Girdhari Lal v.P. the difference between "fine" and "compensation" this Court observed that the distinction between Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 357 is apparent as Sub-section (1) provides for application of an amount of fine towards the purposes indicated while imposing a sentence of which fine forms a part. Kotak Mahindra Co. For sustaining an order for directing expenses to be paid to the state under this provision.49 - According to Section 357(1) it provides for the disbursement of fine imposed by way of compensation. while exercising jurisdiction under Sub-section (3) of Section 357. to order the accused person to pay. there must be a substantive sentence of fine.C. and Anr50 .
(6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority. as the case may be.P. as the case may be. is satisfied. (2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation. (4) Where the offender is not traced or identified. the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority.51 wherein it was. and where no trial takes place. particularly when no mode had been prescribed in the Code for recovery of sums awarded as compensation in the event the same remained unpaid Section 357 (A) of Code of Criminal Procedure (1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. was on account of social concern. may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned. the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall. that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation. or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated.C. at the conclusion of the trial. to alleviate the suffering of the victim. or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit. it may make recommendation for compensation. the Court could enforce the same by imposing sentence in default.- In the case of Hari Singh v. (5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4). held that since the imposition of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr. after due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months. but the victim is identified. inter alia. the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation. Sukhbir Singh. Order to pay costs to the successful complainant 51 MANU/SC/0183/1988 : (1998) 4 SCC 551 . (3) If the trial Court. shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1).".
. 1993 Cri U 1899 (Bom). 1977 Cri LJ 1856 (Kant HC).52 It has been opined that a show-cause must be read in to the provisions of Section 358. 1986 Cri LJ 1634 (Ori HC). 1988 Cri U 1390 (Pat HC).53 There have been instances where the judiciary ordered compensation by the State to be paid to the victim because of the failure of the police to process prosecution. 54 Hazari Chaubey v. 55 In one case the High Court in exercise of inherent powers ordered the complainant to pay compensation to the harassed defendant. Golekha. 53 Pramod Kumar v. 1993 Cri U 1470 (Bom HC). Dhone.M. the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period up to 30 days. 358(1)]. Saban K. [S.P. the person liable to pay shall be sentenced to simple imprisonment up to 30 days. and if it cannot be so recovered. Also see Pramod Kumar v.57 Modes of Pronouncing the Judgment Mallappa v. 358(2)]. State of Bihar. 359] Compensation for wrongful arrests Whenever any person causes a police officer to arrest another person.54 In a case the police was asked to bear the cost of petition against them filed by victims of their illegal acts.56 in another the complainant was asked to pay the cost to the Government. 52 . If there are more than one person so arrested each may be awarded compensation of thousand rupees [S. and if it appears to the Magistrate by whom the case is heard that there was not sufficient ground for causing such arrest. 57 D. something more is needed than the mere information sent to the police in order to hold that the person who filed the police complaint caused the arrest. the court may. the Magistrate may order the person causing the arrest to pay compensation (not exceeding Rs 1000) to the person so arrested for his loss of time and expenses in the matter [S. Therefore. rather than to the defendant. Veerabasappa. order him to pay to the complainant. 1986 Cri U 1634 (Ori HC). Golekha. 56 Jamnaprasad Sarju Tiwari v. [S. The court may further order that in default of payment. in addition to the sentence imposed upon the convicted accused. in whole or in part.cognizable offence upon a complaint the accused is convicted. 358(3)] Generally it is for the police to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for making arrest of the accused person. 1989 Cri LJ 383 (HP HC). Seth v.If in the trial of a non. 55 Padam Dev v. All such compensation may be recovered as if it were a fine. Ganesh Narayan. State ofH. the cost incurred by him in the prosecution.
58 The rules made by the Code in this connection are intended to secure certainty in the ascertainment of what the judgment was. which is understood by the accused or his pleader. every page of the judgment shall be signed by him.1. sign the transcript and every page thereof as soon as it is made ready. which reads as follows353. it shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open court and if it is not written with his own hand. and the judge can at such a stage change his mind and make alterations in the judgment. and write on it the date of the delivery of the judgment in open Court.(1) The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. as the case may be. (a) By delivering the whole of the judgment: or (b) By reading out the whole of the judgment: or (c) By reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language. State of Maharashtra. (1975) 3 SCC 140: 1974 SCC (Cri) 764 at p. 771: 1974 Cri IJ 1291: SunauJm Singh v. (2) Where the judgment is delivered under clause (a) of sub-section (I). (4) Where the judgment is pronounced in the manner specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1). State ofU.A judgment is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and the world at large by formal "pronouncement" or "delivery" in open court. he whole judgment or a copy thereof shall be immediately made available for the perusal of the parties or their pleaders free of cost. (3) Where the judgment or the operative part thereof is read out under clause (b) or clause (c) of subsection (1).P. Therefore until the judgment is ‘delivered’ or ‘pronounced’ in compliance with such rules it is strictly speaking no judgment. Sodawala v.. Section 353 deals with modes of pronouncing a judgment. Judgment . 58 1. . AIR 1954 SC 194: 1954 Cri LJ 475. the presiding officer shall cause it to be taken down in short hand.
State of Uttar Pradesh.61 The Allahabad and Madras High Courts have held 59 60 Surendra Singh v. he shall be required by the court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced.shall be read out in open court ‘in open court’-if a judge dies after writing his judgment but before delivering it in open court. Comments ‘Shall be pronounced’-that is the . Where no material prejudice is caused. and one or more of them do not attend the court on the date on which the judgment is to be pronounced. the judgment is not to be considered as a judgment but merely as an opinion.60 After the termination of the trial-the legality or illegality of a judgment in consequence of its delivery after sentence is passed is a question that can only be answered according to the facts of each case. or defect in serving. It is a mere irregularity cured by section 465. or any of them.59No expression of opinion by a judge becomes judgment until it is pronounced. Alexander Shaw . 1911 13 Bom LR 635 . he shall be brought up to hear the judgment pronounced. the presiding officer may. If a judge who prepared the judgment died before it was delivered another judge cannot deliver it. the notice of such day and place.(5) If the accused is in custody. (6) If the accused is not in custody. on the parties or their pleaders.1870 13 WR 209 61 Thaver Issaji Boree. or of any omission to serve. the omission to write a judgment at the time of passing of the sentence cannot be regarded as an illegality. pronounce the judgment notwithstanding their absence. where there are more accused than one. in order to avoid undue delay in the disposal of the case. (8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit in any way the extent of the provisions of section 465. AIR 1954 SC 194 Nundeeput Mahta v. (7) No judgment delivered by any Criminal Court shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the absence of any party or his pleader on the day or from the place notified for the delivery thereof. except where his personal attendance during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is one of fine only or he is acquitted: Provided that.
1892 14 All 242.(1947) Mad 365 67 Sodawala. 62The Calcutta High Court has held that such a sentence is not illegal if there is no failure of justice.64 - The Supreme Court has given a very timely judgment regarding the undesirable practice of some judges delivering judgments after several months since completion of hearing.1903 27 Mad 237 Tilak Chandra v. 66 Alli Kahn .1932 55 All 132 . The Court in this case has issued certain guidelines to be followed by the courts in India till Parliament make measures to deal with the problem of delayed delivery of judgment.65 The ‘presiding officer’ means a presiding officer at the trial.68 Court not to alter judgment—Save as otherwise provided. who is assumed in the section to have written and pronounced his judgment while still holding the same office. 66An omission to sign and date a judgment at the time of pronouncing it amounts to a mere irregularity curable by section 465. The court has correctly perceived it to be a violation of the speedy trial right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. AIR 1974 SC 1880 68 Pragmadho Singh. Bandanu Atchayya .67 The provisions regarding dating and signing of written judgment do not apply to a high court. [S. no court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case. Section 388 requires that the judgment of the High Court should be certified to the court below.These words contemplate passing of judgment without undue delay.63 “At some subsequent time”. 362] 62 63 Hargobind.1896 23 Cal 502 64 Anil Rai v. Baisagomoff. as any delay in passing of the judgment would be opposed to the principle of law. shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.that the sentence is illegal if there is no written judgment when it is passed. 2001 7 SCC 318 65 Ibid . State of Bihar.
R.pdf http://jajharkhand. 24th September. 41st report (CrPC.pdf kja. 2008 5. 2011. Criminal Procedure.pdf .com/judgment-devoid-of-reasons-nonmaintenable/ http://www. Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. 1 3. Act of 1974. The Code of Criminal Procedure. 2010. Law commission of India. Wadhhwa and Company.vakilno1. B. 1898).com/RC2/pdfdocs/Crpc.com/doc/File904.Bibliography 1.2011 2. 3rd Edition. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal.in/article/Sessions%20Trial.B.pdf - - http://aipoa. V. Code of Criminal Procedure. Woodroffe. Vol.1969.nic. Websites Referred - www. Kolkata. Kelkar’s. Law Publishers. kamal Law House. 20th Edition.htm http://iitbiimb498a.wordpress. Eastern Book Company.taxindiaonline.Mitra. Nagpur.in/judg/sc/pdf/NEGOTIABLE%20INSTRUMENTS %20ACT/Default%20Sentence%20While%20Ordering %20Compensation/Vijayan%20Vs%20Sadanandan %20%202009%206%20SCC%20652. 21st edition. Allahabad. 5th Edition.com/bareacts/CrPc/s354.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.