Deo Narain Mandal v. State Of U.P ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, along with one Kamlesh, attempted to kidnap Kamla (PW-1) at about 10:00 p.m. by arriving in a tempo with several accomplices. Intervention by Kamla’s mother, her maternal uncle, and neighbours thwarted the attempt; the appellant and Kamlesh were apprehended and produced before the police. The VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, convicted the appellant under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 147 IPC, sentencing him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment (RI) and three months’ RI respectively, to run concurrently.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). His counsel did not press the appeal on merits but sought leniency in sentencing. The High Court affirmed the conviction yet reduced the custodial sentence to “period already undergone” (approximately 40 days) and imposed fines of Rs 4,000 (for the kidnapping attempt) and Rs 1,000 (for rioting).

Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave. At the preliminary stage the Supreme Court issued notice both on the appeal and on the possibility of sentence enhancement, necessitating a full examination of merits and sentencing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the convictions under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 147 IPC were sustainable on the evidence.

Whether the High Court erred in reducing the custodial sentence to the period already undergone and substituting additional fines.

What constitutes a proportionate and appropriate sentence in the circumstances of an attempted kidnapping arising from a prior consensual relationship.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

A love affair existed between the appellant and Kamla (PW-1), implying consensual circumstances inconsistent with kidnapping.

The complaint was allegedly motivated by animosity stemming from a quarrel between the appellant and Kamla’s maternal uncle.

The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in this contextual background, warranting reversal of conviction or, alternatively, lenient sentencing.

In mitigation, counsel stressed that the incident occurred almost twenty years earlier, both the appellant and the victim are now married and settled, and the appellant has no subsequent criminal history.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court first reviewed the evidentiary record and accepted the trial court’s factual findings: despite the prior relationship, the appellant, accompanied by others, arrived at night and attempted to abduct the victim before being stopped by family members and neighbours. The Court held that a prior love affair does not justify forcibly removing a woman from her lawful guardianship, thus affirming the conviction on merits.

Turning to sentence, the Court articulated the governing principles of sentencing discretion: gravity of the offence, manner of commission, proportionality, and statutory limits. It found the High Court’s reduction to roughly 40 days’ custody “wholly disproportionate” to an offence carrying up to seven years’ imprisonment under Section 365 and up to half that term under Section 511.

The Court verified custody details and concluded that 40 days’ imprisonment was inadequate. However, acknowledging mitigating factors—passage of time, subsequent settled lives, absence of further misconduct, and the consensual relationship—the Court determined that the trial court’s original two-year sentence was greater than necessary.

Balancing these considerations, the Court set aside the High Court’s order on sentence and substituted a custodial term of six months’ RI for the attempt to kidnap, while maintaining the three-month RI for rioting. The fines imposed by the High Court were retained, with directions that Rs 3,000 of the fine be paid to PW-1. Default sentences of two months (kidnapping attempt) and one month (rioting) RI were stipulated for non-payment.

Holding and Implications

Conviction Affirmed; Sentence Modified. The appellant must undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 IPC and three months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC (concurrent), pay fines totalling Rs 5,000, and face specified default imprisonment if unpaid.

Implications: The judgment underscores proportionality in sentencing—correcting both excessive leniency and undue harshness—while reaffirming that prior consensual relations do not immunise forcible conduct from criminal liability. The decision’s effect is confined to the parties; it does not establish new precedent but highlights the Supreme Court’s willingness to reassess sentences when lower courts misapply discretion.

Deo Narain Mandal v. State Of U.P .

N. Santosh Hegde, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant and one Kamlesh were found guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 IPC for which the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow awarded two years' rigorous imprisonment to the said accused. They were also awarded a further sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 147 IPC. He directed both the sentences to run concurrently.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court by the impugned order noted that the case of the appellant herein was not pressed on merits and only a plea to reduce the sentence was advanced before it, hence while confirming the conviction awarded by the trial court by generally observing, that considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as the age, character and other antecedents of the appellant, it held that the ends of justice would be met if sentence awarded to the appellant is modified and reduced to the period already undergone. It, however, imposed a fine of Rs 4000 for an offence punishable under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 and for offence under Section 147 the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone and fine of Rs 1000 was awarded.

5. Not being satisfied with the said reduced conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal. When this appeal came for preliminary hearing, this Court on 8-8-2003, while issuing notice on the SLP also issued notice to the appellant asking why the sentence awarded by the High Court should not be enhanced. Since the High Court has recorded that the appellant has not pressed his appeal on merits in the ordinary course, we would have accepted that statement recorded by the High Court and would have dismissed the appeal without going into the question on merits. However, since there is a notice in enhancement of the sentence by this Court, it is but proper in law that we should hear the appellant on merits of the case also.

6. Shri K.B Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that at the relevant point of time there was an ongoing love affair between the appellant and Kamla (PW 1), the girl who was attempted to be kidnapped. He also pointed out that the maternal uncle of the victim had a fight with the appellant, it is because of this background a false complaint was lodged against the appellant and others. The trial court did not properly appreciate the evidence in this background, hence, the conviction recorded by the courts below cannot be sustained.

7. We have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case and we notice that though it is true that there was a love affair between Kamla and the appellant, on the date of incident the appellant along with 5 other persons did come in a tempo and tried to kidnap Kamla at about 10 p.m and it is because of the intervention of the mother and maternal uncle of the victim along with the neighbours, the appellant and another accused by name Kamlesh were apprehended and were produced before the police promptly. The fact that the said Kamla had an affair with the appellant would not, in any manner, give any right to the appellant to forcibly take her away from her lawful guardianship. In this background the trial court correctly came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offences for which he is convicted and the said conviction, in our opinion, deserves to be sustained.

8. This brings us to the next question in regard to the reduction of sentence made by the High Court. In criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality. Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words, the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the background of the facts of each case and the court while doing so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.

9. In the instant case, it is seen that the appellant along with the co-accused were found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 IPC as also under Section 147 IPC. Section 365 provides for a sentence which may extend to seven years while Section 511 provides for a sentence which may extend to half of the imprisonment that is awardable for the principal offence, attempt of which is committed by the accused. Section 147 provides for a sentence which may extend to two years. It is in the background of this statutory provision the trial court after hearing the accused on the question of sentence came to the conclusion that the ends of justice would be met by awarding two years' rigorous imprisonment to the accused under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 IPC and had sentenced the appellant to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 with a direction that the sentence should run concurrently.

10. The High Court in this case without even noticing the fact as to what is the actual sentence undergone by the appellant pursuant to his conviction awarded by the trial court, proceeded to reduce the same to the period already undergone with added sentences of fine as stated above. Of course, the High Court by the impugned order recorded that the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the age, character and other antecedents of the appellant made the Court feel that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced and modified. This conclusion of the High Court for reducing the sentence in our considered view is wholly disproportionate to the offence of which the appellant is found guilty.

11. To find out whether the period already undergone by the appellant would be sufficient for reducing the sentence, we had called upon the learned counsel appearing for the State to give us the necessary information and from the list of dates provided by the State, we notice that the appellant was arrested on 12-1-1983 and was granted bail on 14-1-1983 by the trial court, which shows that he was in custody for two days, that too as an undertrial prisoner. The trial court sentenced the appellant on 31-5-1988 and the High Court released the appellant on 8-7-1988. It is not clear from the list of dates when exactly the appellant surrendered to his bail after the judgment of the trial court. Presuming the fact in favour of the appellant that he was taken into custody on the date of the judgment i.e 31-5-1988 itself. Since he was released on bail by the High Court on 8-7-1988, he would have been in custody as a convict for 38 days which together with the two days spent as an undertrial, would take the period of custody to 40 days. On facts and circumstances of this case, we must hold that sentence of 40 days for an offence punishable under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 is wholly inadequate and disproportionate.

12. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court, so far as it pertains to the reduction of sentence awarded by the trial court, will have to be set aside.

13. The next question would be: what would be an appropriate sentence on the facts of this case. Shri K.B Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that apart from the fact that the incident in question had taken place nearly twenty years ago (which itself is not a ground for reduction of sentence), the victim as well as the appellant are now married and settled in life. A prolonged sentence in such situation might have a deleterious effect on the family of the appellant. He also has pointed out that since the date of the incident in question, there has been no allegation against the appellant of any criminal conduct. Hence, he pleaded that having noticed all the facts including the factum of the love affair between the appellant and the victim a reduced sentence may kindly be considered. Having taken into consideration the said plea advanced on behalf of the appellant while dismissing the appeal of the appellant and affirming the conviction recorded by the two courts below, we substitute the sentence awarded by the trial court and the High Court and direct the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 IPC. The sentence of three months awarded for offence punishable under Section 147 IPC by the trial court is maintained. We also maintain the fine awarded by the High Court of Rs 4000 for offence under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 and fine of Rs 1000 for offence under Section 147 IPC. We further direct that if the fine amount is recovered, a sum of Rs 3000 out of the same shall be paid to PW 1 Kamla Devi who was the victim of the act of the appellant, if the appellant defaults in the payment of the abovesaid fine, he shall undergo a further period of two months' rigorous imprisonment for the default of the fine awarded for offence punishable under Sections 365/511 read with Section 149 and a further period of one month's RI if the fine imposed by the High Court under Section 147 is not paid.

14. With the above modification this appeal is dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2004, decided on August 25, 2004

Deo Narain Mandal v. State Of U.P .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Deo Narain Mandal v. State Of U.P .

Comments