Tekan Alias Tekram v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Judgment: 11.02.2016

Bench: Justice M.Y. Iqbal, Arun Mishra

This case has come up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of criminal appeal preferred by the Accused/ appellant against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chattisgarh affirming the judgement passed by the Additional Session Judge, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. After examining the findings recorded by the Courts below, this Hon’ble Court has upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the two courts.

However, the question that arose for consideration was as to whether the prosecutrix was entitled to victim compensation in the facts and circumstances of this case and if so, to what extent. After perusing the Victim Compensation Schemes notified by the state governments and union territories under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C., 1973 it is clear that no uniform practice is being followed in providing compensation to the rape victim for the offence and for her rehabilitation.

While dismissing this appeal, this Hon’ble Court has given following directions:-

“1) All the States and Union Territories shall make all endeavour to formulate a uniform scheme for providing victim compensation in respect of rape/sexual exploitation with the physically handicapped women as required under the law taking into consideration the scheme framed by the State of Goa for rape victim compensation; 2) So far as this case is concerned, the respondent-State shall pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as victim compensation to the victim who is physically handicapped, i.e. blind, till her life time.”

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Udaibhan

Date of Judgment: 01.03.2016

Bench: Justice Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh

This is a case that has arose before the Apex Court by way of criminal appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the order and judgement of the High Court where, while partly allowing the appeal preferred by the accused persons, the Court has converted the conviction under Section 307 of IPC for accused no.1 and under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the other two appellants into one under Section 326 and 326/34 for the other two, respectively. However the High Court did not interfere with the fine imposed on the appealants therein but reduced the sentence for imprisonment which was R.I. f or 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 as well as Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC to a period already undergone by the respondents which was of one year and nine months only. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the findings of the High Court as lenient and there no mitigating circumstances to take such view. This Hon’ble Court also laid down that it is the duty of the Court awarding sentence to ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not re-
assure the society that the offender has been properly dealt with.Hence this Hon’ble Court has allowed the appeal while imposing on all the three accused persons a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years in place of period already undergone, for the offence under Section 326 as well as Section 326/34 of the IPC.

LawZ Bureau