VIKAS YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

VIKAS YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Fixed term sentences (specified number of years) are legally permissible and may be imposed by appellate courts in appropriate cases as an 'expanded option' between the minimum and maximum punishments for murder to address penological necessity and to curtail premature remission under Section 433-A CrPC; however an appellate court cannot impose a sentence beyond what the trial court was competent to impose in law; on the facts of this case the High Court's imposition of fixed term sentences was justified and the sentence under Section 201/34 IPC must run concurrently with other sentences.

Parties
Appellant: Vikas Yadav; Appellant: Vishal Yadav; Appellant: Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan; Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence (convictions Upheld; Only Sentence in Issue)
Outcome
Appeals disposed; convictions upheld; High Court sentences otherwise upheld with modification that sentence under Section 201/34 IPC shall run concurrently with other sentences
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Sentence, Life Imprisonment, Death Penalty, Remission (section 433 a Cr Pc), Appellate Jurisdiction, Honour Killing, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Sentencing Fixed Term Sentence Life Imprisonment Death Penalty Remission (section 433 a Cr Pc) Appellate Jurisdiction +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vikas Yadav

Appellant

Vishal Yadav

Appellant

Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan

Appellant

State of U.P. and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence (convictions Upheld; Only Sentence in Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court may impose a fixed term sentence (a term of years) in lieu of life imprisonment or death for murder and thereby curtail executive remission under Section 433-A CrPC
  2. 2 Whether an appellate court may impose a sentence beyond the competence of the trial court
  3. 3 Whether sentences for multiple offences may be directed to run consecutively or concurrently where a fixed term sentence is imposed along with life sentence

Ratio Decidendi

Fixed term sentences (specified number of years) are legally permissible and may be imposed by appellate courts in appropriate cases as an 'expanded option' between the minimum and maximum punishments for murder to address penological necessity and to curtail premature remission under Section 433-A CrPC; however an appellate court cannot impose a sentence beyond what the trial court was competent to impose in law; on the facts of this case the High Court's imposition of fixed term sentences was justified and the sentence under Section 201/34 IPC must run concurrently with other sentences.

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed; convictions upheld; High Court sentences otherwise upheld with modification that sentence under Section 201/34 IPC shall run concurrently with other sentences

Orders

  • Convictions of the appellants are upheld
  • Sentence under Section 201/34 IPC shall run concurrently with the sentence(s) imposed for other offences by the High Court; all other sentences and directions of the High Court remain intact