9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to order upholding conviction under Sections 342, 365, and 330 u/s 34 IPC, confusion regarding concession on conviction, mis-conceived appeal.
Summary: Issue 1: Conviction and Sentence The appeal challenged the order upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections 342, 365, and 330 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court noted that the conviction was not questioned, and only the quantum of sentence was debated. It was observed that the conviction was not in dispute, and the focus was on the severity of the sentence. The High Court found that the sentence was not disproportionate considering the nature of the offenses. Issue 2: Alleged Confusion on Conviction The appellants' counsel argued that there was confusion as the appellants never instructed not to challenge the conviction. They claimed that the conviction lacked material and basis, contrary to the concession made before the High Court. Issue 3: Mis-conceived Appeal The respondent-State's counsel contended that since the conviction was conceded to be in order before the High Court, the present appeal was mis-conceived. Reference was made to legal precedents emphasizing the finality of statements recorded in court judgments and the limited scope for challenging them later. The Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter, citing the need for parties to address discrepancies in court records promptly. However, the Court clarified that if a motion was filed before the High Court claiming no concession was made, it would be duly considered in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed.
|
