PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA versus THE STATE OF U.P.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Given the mitigating factors on record (39 years having elapsed since the offence, acquittal of co-accused, old enmity underlying the incident, the appellants relation to A1, absence of criminal antecedents and lack of premeditation), the Court reduced the sentence from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.50,000 payable to the complainant; the conviction under Section 307 IPC remains affirmed and the reduction is justified by balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Pramod Kumar Mishra; Respondent: The State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Limited to Quantum of Sentence
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Section 307 IPC, Quantum of Sentence, Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Indian Penal Code Section 307 IPC Quantum of Sentence Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pramod Kumar Mishra

Appellant

The State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Limited to Quantum of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC is just and proper
  2. 2 Whether the sentence should be reduced in view of mitigating factors including lapse of time, absence of antecedents and lack of premeditation

Ratio Decidendi

Given the mitigating factors on record (39 years having elapsed since the offence, acquittal of co-accused, old enmity underlying the incident, the appellants relation to A1, absence of criminal antecedents and lack of premeditation), the Court reduced the sentence from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.50,000 payable to the complainant; the conviction under Section 307 IPC remains affirmed and the reduction is justified by balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Conviction under Section 307 IPC affirmed
  • Sentence of appellant reduced from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years rigorous imprisonment