Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Kidnapping Case: K. Prakash & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 19 March 2021

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.610 of 2021)

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a court modify a sentence imposed by lower courts, even when upholding the conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving kidnapping and wrongful confinement. This judgment clarifies the factors that courts consider when deciding on the appropriate sentence, especially when there are mitigating circumstances. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case revolves around the kidnapping of a minor girl, PW-2. The complainant, PW-1, who is the mother of PW-2, reported that her daughter went to a nearby shop on 08 May 2014 to buy chips and milk but did not return. PW-1 later found out that her daughter had left in an auto-rickshaw. PW-1 suspected accused No. 1, who had been insisting on marrying her daughter, even though PW-2 was not of marriageable age. Accused No. 1, with the help of other accused, including the appellants, kidnapped PW-2 in a car provided by the appellants.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellants, accused Nos. 4 and 5, for offences under Sections 344 (wrongful confinement) and 366 (kidnapping) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC. Accused No. 1 was also convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, confirming their conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court heard the appeal limited to the quantum of sentence.

Legal Framework

The relevant legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with wrongful confinement. It states, “Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage. It states, “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation or abuse of authority, or by any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place, with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person, shall also be punishable as aforesaid.”
• Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): This section deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that they were falsely implicated. They were merely tenants of accused Nos. 6 and 7 and had no connection with the crime.
• The only allegation against them was that they helped accused No. 1 transport the victim in a car driven by PW-6.
• They pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence.
• They argued that the sentence imposed was excessive, considering their circumstances, including having a minor child and aged parents to care for.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the appellants were rightly convicted under Sections 344 and 366 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, for their role in the kidnapping.
• The State contended that there was no illegality in the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the primary issue before the court was:

• Whether the sentence imposed on the appellants for offences under Sections 344 and 366 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, should be modified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any authorities in this judgment. The court primarily relied on the facts and circumstances of the case to modify the sentence.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no authorities cited in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to modify the sentence was influenced by several factors:

• The main accusation was against accused No. 1, who was also convicted under the POCSO Act.
• The appellants’ role was secondary, involving providing a car for the kidnapping.
• The appellants had already served approximately three months of their sentence and paid the fine amount.
• The appellants had family responsibilities, including a minor child and aged parents.
• The incident occurred in 2014, and the court considered the time elapsed since then.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court, while confirming the conviction and fine imposed by the lower courts, modified the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone. The court emphasized the need for a human approach at the sentencing stage, considering all relevant factors. The court noted that the main accusation was against accused No. 1, and the appellants had already served a portion of their sentence. The court also took into account the appellants’ family responsibilities. The court stated, “Many factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt, must be seen with a human approach, at the stage of sentencing.” and “While imposing the sentence, all relevant factors are to be considered, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of each case.” The court further observed, “In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, while confirming the conviction recorded and fine imposed, we modify the sentence on the appellants for the period already undergone.”

Key Takeaways

• Courts consider mitigating factors like family responsibilities and time served when deciding on sentences.
• The primary culpability of the main accused is a factor in determining the sentence of other accused involved in the same crime.
• Even when a conviction is upheld, the sentence can be modified based on the specific circumstances of the case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released forthwith unless their custody was required in connection with any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the courts can modify the sentence imposed by the lower courts by considering the mitigating circumstances of the case. This case clarifies that even when a conviction is upheld, the sentence can be modified based on the specific circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone, while upholding their conviction. This judgment highlights the importance of considering individual circumstances and mitigating factors during sentencing, even when upholding the conviction.