LI Network
Published on: December 24, 2023 at 12:15 IST
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that when an individual is charged with a more severe offense but is ultimately convicted of lesser offenses, it amounts to the acquittal of the serious offense. The High Court cannot convert the lesser offense into a more serious one during an appeal for the enhancement of sentence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthal, presiding over the case of Shaul Borov, who was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas, emphasized that the High Court can only enhance the sentence provided for the lesser offense of which the person was found guilty.
The Court’s observations were made during the hearing of an appeal under Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge-II, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. Shaul Borov had been sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000 for the possession of 2.500 kgs of charas.
Representing the State of H.P., Additional Advocate General Mr. Jitender Sharma argued that the sentence imposed was inadequate, given the commercial quantity involved.
The state contended that the accused should have been sentenced in accordance with the possession of a commercial quantity, which carries a minimum imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of not less than ₹1,00,000.
Justice Kainthla referred to legal precedents, including the Privy Council, Supreme Court, and Karnataka High Court, to establish the principle that acquittal on a more severe charge constitutes an acquittal, and a conviction for a lesser offense effectively amounts to an acquittal of the graver charge.
The Court emphasized that in an appeal for sentence enhancement, the appellate court cannot alter the nature of acquittal. It clarified that courts cannot convert a lesser offense into the more severe offense for which the accused was acquitted.
In line with legal principles, the bench underscored that the appellate court’s power in sentence enhancement is restricted to enhancing the sentence within the limits prescribed for the lesser offense of conviction.
Considering that the accused had already served a sentence beyond the statutory maximum for the lesser offense, the court concluded that further enhancement is impermissible and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: State of H.P Vs Shaul Borov
