SC: The High Court cannot award a sentence which is less than the prescribed minimum sentence as provided by the Statute

The Supreme Court of India, on 08.02.2019, in STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v VIKRAM DAS[1] , had allowed the appeal that had been  made by the State which challenged  the  High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh’s order  at Jabalpur,  which had sentenced the  respondent for the offence punishable  under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to the sentence that  already been  undergone, however, the fine had been enhanced to  an amount of Rs. 3000/- to Rs.500/-.

The High Court’s order  was passed in  connection to the appeal that had been made by  respondent  against  the  trial court’s order  by which  the respondent had to face conviction under the aforesaid Act followed by a sentence of  rigorous imprisonment for  a term of six months along with a fine imposed  of Rs. 500/-.

DECISION HELD BY THE APEX COURT:
When an appeal was made in the Supreme Court of India, the Apex Court while allowing the appeal and set8ing aside the High Court’s order held that Courts cannot impose anything less than a minimum sentence when a minimum sentence has already been specified while further upholding that one cannot resort to the provisions as mentioned in Article 142 of the Constitution for imposing a sentence that is sentence less than the minimum prescribed sentence. Hence, the High Court cannot award a sentence which is less than the prescribed minimum sentence as provided by the Statute and that the remaining sentence that imposed upon the respondent for undergoing shall continue to remain under the offence in the abovementioned Act.