- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Parveen v. State Of Haryana .
Factual and Procedural Background
The police received specific intelligence on the night of 9 February 2009 that the appellant, Parveen, and one Jaswant were planning to rob passing vehicles near Agma Gas Agency Store, Sector 21-D, Faridabad. Acting on the tip-off, PW 2 (ASI Ishwar Singh) and PW 4 (Head Constable Yaseen Khan) proceeded to the location and observed a white Indigo car parked in a deserted area. They saw the appellant and Jaswant attempt to stop a Maruti car; when the driver sped away, the police apprehended both suspects. A knife was recovered from the appellant and an iron rod from Jaswant. Two number plates—one bearing a Madhya Pradesh registration number—were also found in the Indigo. Investigation later revealed that the car belonged to LIC and had been stolen. Neither accused could explain its possession, and both were residents of District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, not Faridabad.
The Trial Court convicted both accused under Section 398 (attempt to commit robbery with deadly weapons), Section 401 (belonging to a gang of thieves), Section 471 (using forged documents), Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. They were sentenced, inter alia, to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 398 IPC— the statutory minimum.
On appeal, the Punjab & Haryana High Court (Criminal Appeal Nos. S-1793-SB and S-2547-SB of 2011) affirmed the convictions and sentences on 21 December 2013. The present matter reached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10404 of 2014, where notice was issued limited solely to the question of sentence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 398 IPC could be reduced when that provision prescribes a statutory minimum of seven years.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant had already undergone more than three-and-a-half years of imprisonment.
- Requested that the substantive sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
Respondent (State of Haryana)'s Arguments
- Both accused were armed with deadly weapons at the time of the offence.
- There were other criminal cases pending against the accused, reflecting their criminal propensity.
- Section 398 IPC mandates a minimum sentence of seven years, leaving no scope for reduction.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court confined its examination to the question of sentence. It noted that:
- Convictions under Sections 398 and 401 IPC had attained finality; only sentencing was open for review.
- Section 398 IPC explicitly prescribes that the sentence “shall not be less than seven years.”
- The Trial Court had awarded exactly seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, i.e., the statutory minimum.
Given the statutory bar on awarding a sentence below seven years for an offence under Section 398 IPC, the Court concluded that it lacked legal authority to grant any reduction. Consequently, no relief on the sentence could be extended to the appellant.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed. The sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 398 IPC, along with the concurrent sentences under other provisions, remains intact.
Implications: The decision reaffirms the mandatory minimum sentencing framework under Section 398 IPC and underscores the Supreme Court’s limited power to reduce such sentences absent statutory discretion. No new precedent is set beyond reiterating the binding nature of the statutory minimum.
Uday U. Lalit, J.— Leave granted. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 21-12-2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Parveen v. State of Haryana 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 26644 Criminal Appeal No. S-1793-SB of 2011, 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 26644 Criminal Appeal No. S-2547-SB of 2011 confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant and one Jaswant under Sections 398 and 401 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act. On 18-12-2014 SLP (Cri) No. 10404 of 2014 this Court was pleased to issue notice limited to the question of sentence.
2. According to the prosecution, the police had received specific information that the appellant and one Jaswant were planning to loot passing vehicles near Agma Gas Agency Store situated in Sector 21-D, Faridabad. This information was received on 9-2-2009 after 9.30 p.m. PW 2, Ishwar Singh, ASI was already present in Sector 21-D, Faridabad on patrol duty. On receipt of the information, he along with the raiding party proceeded towards the spot. According to PW 2 Ishwar Singh and PW 4, Head Constable Yaseen Khan, they saw a white-coloured Indigo car parked at a deserted spot. They further saw that the appellant and the said Jaswant tried to stop a passing Maruti car but the driver evaded them and sped away. The police overpowered the appellant and the said Jaswant and on their personal search recovered a knife from the appellant and an iron rod from Jaswant. On search of the car, the police found two number plates, one having car registration number of Madhya Pradesh. The photographer was called and photographs of the vehicle and the site in question were taken.
3. During the investigation it was discovered that the said car was actually owned by LIC and was a stolen vehicle. Neither the appellant nor the said Jaswant could come up with any explanation as to how that car was found in their possession. Further, both these persons were statedly residents of District Gonda, U.P. and not residents of Faridabad.
4. The trial court after considering the material on record found that the case as against the appellant and Jaswant was fully made out. It convicted both the accused under Section 398 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. They were further convicted under Sections 471 and 411 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and one year respectively with imposition of fine and sentences in default. The appellant was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
5. In appeal arising from the judgment of conviction of the trial court, it was submitted that both the accused had already undergone custody for over three-and-a-half years and that their sentence be reduced to that already undergone. The High Court considered the matter in its entirety and found that both the accused were armed with deadly weapons and that the record showed that they had other pending cases registered against them. The High Court thus did not differ from the view taken by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
6. We have gone through the record and heard the rival submissions. As mentioned hereinabove, notice was limited to the question of sentence. The conviction in the instant case is under Sections 398 and 401 IPC. Though sentence under Section 401 can be less than seven years, that under Section 398 “shall not be less than seven years”. The appellant and the said Jaswant were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 398 IPC, which is the minimum sentence.
7. In the circumstances no relief can be granted to the appellant. We therefore dismiss this criminal appeal.
Alert