MOHD. FIROZ versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1027, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1027
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1027
1027
MOHD. FIROZ
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Review Petition (Crl.) No. 282 of 2022)
In
(Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2019)
OCTOBER 21, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Review – Clarification sought on quantum of sentence – In
judgment dated 19.04.2022 for which review is sought, the
petitioner-accused was held guilty and punished for the offences
was under ss.376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) and under s.376(A) of IPC as
also under s.5 (i) and s.5 (m) read with s.6 of the POCSO Act – In
judgment dated 19.04.2022, the Court, while commuting the sentence
of death for the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence
punishable under s.302 of IPC, and while imposing sentence to
undergo imprisonment for 20 years and not imprisonment for the
remainder of his natural life for the offence under s.376A, IPC
tried to balance the scales of retributive justice and restorative
justice – If the sentence of life imprisonment was imposed by the
Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court, and also by this
Court, then the life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for the
remainder of the petitioner’s (original appellant’s) natural life –
The Court had consciously imposed the sentence of 20 years for
the offence under s.376A – Therefore appellant-petitioner shall
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years for the
offence – The sentence imposed for the offence under ss.376(2)(i)
and 376(2)(m) of IPC and for the
offence under ss.5(i) and 5(m)
read with s.6 of the POCSO Act is modified, so as to commensurate
the said sentences with the sentence imposed for the offence under
s.376(A) of IPC, and accordingly sentence is imposed directing the
petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty years
instead of life imprisonment for the said offences – The judgment
and order dated 19.04.2022 is accordingly corrected and modified
to that extent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1028
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition
(Crl.) No. 282 of 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2019.
[From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2014 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.2920 of
2013 and Criminal Reference No. 9 of 2013]
B. H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv., (AC), Ms. Trisha Chandran, Bhavesh
Seth, Ms. Harini Raghupathy, Ramnesh Kumar Sahu, Satya Mitra, Advs.
for the Petitioner.
P. V. Yogeshwaran, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. Ayushi Mittal,
Vipul Abhishek, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was passed by
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The instant application has been filed by the applicant-appellant
seeking the following prayers:
(a)
Pass an order clarifying that pursuant to the Judgment of
this Hon’ble Court dated 19.04.2022 in Criminal Appeal
No.612 of 2018, the sentence to be served by the Applicant
is life imprisonment simplicitor for the offence under Section
302, 5(m),(i) and 6 of the Protection of Children under
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), imprisonment for a
term of 20 years for the offence under Section 376A, IPC,
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under
Section 366, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for
the offence under Section 363, IPC.
(b)
Pass an order clarifying that the sentence imposed by the
Ld. Sessions Judge, Seoni under Sections 376(2)(m) and
376(2)(i), IPC has been substituted/subsumed by this
Hon’ble Court in
Judgment dated 19.04.2022 in Criminal
Appeal 612 of 2018 by imposing a sentence of imprisonment
for 20 years under Section 376A, IPC.
(c)
Pass an order clarifying that the sentence to be served by
the applicant for the offence under Sections 5(m) and (i), 6,
POCSO is life imprisonment and not life imprisonment for
the reminder of natural life.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1029
(d)
Pass an order directing the Ld. Sessions Judge Seoni to
modify the order of supersession in accordance with the
Prayers A to C.
(e)
Pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties
passed the following order on 19.10.2022:
“Instant Miscellaneous Application is treated as Review
Petition and be registered as one by the Registry.
Oral hearing in the matter is permitted.
Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, learned Senior Advocate, who has been
assisting this Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the
accused submits that-
(A)
In paragraph 43 of the Order, this Court (i) modified
the sentence of death for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short,‘IPC’)to that of imprisonment for life; (ii)
awarded sentence of twenty years instead of
imprisonment “for remainder part of his life” for the
offence punishable under Section 376A of the Indian
Penal Code; and (iii) affirmed the conviction and
sentence recorded by the Courts below for the other
offences under the IPC and Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’)
(B)
The other offences, referred to above, comprised of
offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(i) and 376
(2)(m) of the IPC as well as under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act. In respect of these three offences, the
punishment awarded to the appellant- accused on each
count was life
imprisonment with the qualification that
“it shall be for the remainder part of his natural life”.
(C)
Though, the amendments to Section 376 were
brought in force before the offence was committed by
the appellant-accused, the amendment to the
provisions of POCSO Act was brought into force, well
after the offence was committed.
MOHD. FIROZ v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1030
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
(D)
In the circumstances, the sentence of life
imprisonment with qualification for “remainder of his
natural life” could not have been awarded in respect
of offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO
Act.
(E)
Having granted benefit of reduction of sentence to
term sentence of twenty years instead of imprisonment
for the “remainder of his natural life” for the offence
under Section 376A of the IPC, the case of the
appellant be considered on same lines with respect
to offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) and
376 (2) (m) of the IPC.
Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, learned Advocate appearing for the
State, has fairly accepted the submission with respect to
the punishment to be awarded for the offence punishable
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but has left the matter
to the discretion of this Court with respect to the
punishment for the offences punishable under Sections
376(i) and 376(m) of the IPC are concerned.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Order reserved.”
3. At the outset, it may be noted that though the applicant/appellant
had filed the application seeking clarification of the judgment dated
19.04.2022 passed in the captioned appeal, the applicant had in fact
sought a review of the said judgment as regards the sentences imposed
by the court for the offences under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of
IPC and Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Having regard to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
parties, the application was treated as Review Petition by the Court and
the Registry was directed to register as such, vide the aforestated Order
dated 19.10.2022.
4. Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, the learned Senior Advocate appearing
as an amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention
of the Court to the provisions contained in Section 376(2) of the IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act to submit that the punishment prescribed
for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC is rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years and for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1031
the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act shall not be less than 20
years, but in both cases it may extend to imprisonment for life, which
shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life.
According to him, this Court consciously imposed punishment for twenty
years and not for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(A)
of IPC, which otherwise would have meant imprisonment for the
remainder of the appellant’s natural life, for the reasons stated in the
judgment, and therefore the said purpose would be frustrated if the
sentences of imprisonment for life confirmed by this Court for the offence
under Sections 376(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC and under Section 5 (i) read
with Section 6 and Section 5 (m) read with Section 6 of POCSO ACT
are not suitably modified.
5. Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, learned Advocate appearing for the
State of Madhya Pradesh has fairly accepted the said submissions,
however has left the matter to the discretion of the Court.
6. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made
by the learned counsels for the parties and to the punishments prescribed
for the offences under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) and under Section
376(A) of IPC as also for the offence under Section 5 (i) and Section
5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, for which the petitioner-
accused has held guilty and punished, and to the observations made by
this Court in the judgment dated 19.04.2022, it appears that the Court,
while commuting the sentence of death for the sentence of life
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC,
and while imposing sentence to undergo imprisonment for 20 years
and not imprisonmentfor the remainder of his natural life for the offence
under Section 376A, IPC, had tried to balance the scales of retributive
justice and restorative justice. The Court, at the same time had
confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below
for the other offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act which
included offence under Sections 376(i) and 376(m) of IPC and Section
5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. Hence, as rightly
submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Marlapalle, if the
sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court and
confirmed by the High Court, is also confirmed by this Court for the
offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m), IPC and for the
offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of POCSO
Act, then the life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for the
MOHD. FIROZ v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1032
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
remainder of the petitioner’s (original appellant’s) natural life, and in
that case, the very purpose of the court in not imposing the sentence
of life imprisonment for the remainder of petitioner’s life for the offence
under Section 376(A) of IPC, would be frustrated. The Court had
consciously imposed the sentence of twenty years for the offence under
Section 376A for the reasons stated in the judgment. The Court
therefore is inclined to accept the submissions of Mr. Marlapalle, and
to modify the sentence imposed for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i)
and 376(2)(m) of IPC and for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5
(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, so as to commensurate
the said sentences with the sentence imposed for the offence under
Section 376(A) of IPC, and accordingly imposes sentence directing
the appellant/petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty
years instead of life imprisonment for the said offences.
7. The upshot of this order would be that the appellant-petitioner
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years for the
offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC, and for a period
of 20 years for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The judgment and order dated 19.04.2022
passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2019 stands corrected
and modified to the aforesaid extent. The rest of the judgment
shall
remain unchanged.
8. The review petition stands allowed accordingly.
Devika Gujral
Petition allowed.
(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)