Conviction Upheld but Sentence Reduced: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Kidnapping Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 10, 2018, ruled on an appeal concerning a conviction under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, Sajid vs. The State of Uttarakhand, involved an alleged kidnapping, where the appellant was convicted and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. However, based on a subsequent compromise and changed circumstances, the Supreme Court modified the sentence.

The case underscores how courts can consider later developments, such as a compromise between the victim and the accused, while deciding the final sentence, even though the conviction remains unchanged.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Sajid, was convicted under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. Section 363 deals with the punishment for kidnapping, while Section 366 pertains to kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage. Following the conviction, the trial court sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000.

The appellant, while serving his sentence, appealed before the Supreme Court, arguing that the complainant had since married another person and had no grievances against him.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant’s counsel argued that:

• The alleged victim had since moved on with her life and had no complaints against the appellant.
• The parties had reached a compromise, and the complainant had married another person, indicating that there were no lasting repercussions from the incident.
• Given these developments, the Court should consider reducing the sentence to ensure complete justice.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Uttarakhand, representing the prosecution, acknowledged the changed circumstances and submitted that there were no further issues arising from the case. The counsel for the complainant also confirmed that she had married another person and was living happily, with no objections to the appellant being granted relief.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court made the following key observations:

“Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that in the given circumstances, for doing complete justice between the parties, the sentence needs to be modified. However, the conviction is confirmed.”

The Court emphasized that while a compromise does not negate the offense, it can be taken into account while determining the appropriate sentence. Since the complainant had moved on and there were no lingering consequences from the case, the Court found it just to limit the sentence to the period already undergone.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence as follows:

• The appellant’s sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
• He was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to the complainant within one month.
• If the appellant was not required in any other case, he was to be released forthwith.

Conclusion

The ruling in Sajid vs. The State of Uttarakhand demonstrates how courts balance legal principles with real-world circumstances. While the Supreme Court reaffirmed that criminal liability cannot be erased merely due to a compromise, it acknowledged that the sentencing should reflect the current realities of the case. This judgment highlights the judiciary’s approach in ensuring justice that is fair and considers both legal and human aspects.

Petitioner Name: Sajid.
Respondent Name: The State of Uttarakhand & Another.
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: Uttarakhand, India.
Judgment Date: 10-08-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sajid vs The State of Uttarak Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-08-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category