NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2023

Shiv Mangal Ahirwar                      …Appellant

versus

State of Madhya Pradesh     ...Respondent

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.  

FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. This   is   a   case   where,   on   15 th  March   2006,   the
present   appellant,   along   with   other   co­accused,
committed the murder of three persons.  According to the
case of the prosecution, the incident occurred at about 7
p.m.   on   15th  March   2006   at   Village   Khaira   Kasar,   PS
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2023.04.13

Jujharnagar.     It   is   alleged   that   the   accused   persons

17:44:56 IST
Reason:

Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2023
Page 1 of 9
 formed a wrongful assembly with the common object of
murdering   Rambabu,   Dileep   and   Babbu.     The   accused
were   armed   with   deadly   weapons,   such   as   a   country­
made   pistol,   lance,   javelin,   battle­axe,   axe   and   sticks.
Apart from killing three persons, they caused injuries to
one   Bhola   and   Smt.   Shanti.     The   Sessions   Court
convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302,
read   with   Section   149   (on   three   counts)   of   the   Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).   Three other co­
accused were also convicted for the same offence.  All the
accused   were   sentenced   to   undergo   life   imprisonment
with a direction that their imprisonment shall continue
for the rest of their lives.  In the appeal preferred by the
present   appellant,   the   High   Court   has   confirmed   the
sentence.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
challenged   the   conviction  on  merits by  contending  that
the   identification   of   the   accused   is   doubtful.     His
submission is that as far as the appellant is concerned,
there is no convincing evidence of his involvement in the
offence.   His other submission is that at the time of the
commission of the offence, the age of the appellant was
about 20 years, and on the date of the order of conviction
passed by the Trial Court on 20th April 2010, his age was
about 25 years.  He submitted that the present age of the

Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2023
Page 2 of 9
 appellant is 38 years.   He submitted that in view of the
decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of  Union
of   India   v.   V.   Sriharan   alias   Murugan   &   Ors. 1,  the
Sessions   Court   had   no   jurisdiction   to   direct   that   the
appellant shall undergo imprisonment for the rest of his
life.     His   submission   is   that   such   a   power   could   have
been   exercised   only   by   the   Constitutional   Courts   when
there was a question of commuting the death sentence.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the respondent – State submitted that it is a case of
the   brutal   murder   of   three   persons   at   a   time.     His
submission   is   that   the   appellant   and   other   co­accused
were carrying deadly weapons with the intention of killing
three   victims.     He   submitted   that   both   the   Courts
believed the testimony of the three prosecution witnesses,
namely   Shanti   Bai   (PW­3),   Sangeeta   (PW­4)   and   Guddi
Bai   (PW­7).     He   would,   therefore,   submit   that   no
interference   is   called for.   As  regards the  sentence, his
submission is that the High Court always had the power
to impose a modified punishment which will run through
the life of the appellant.  After an application of mind, the
High Court has confirmed the view taken by the Sessions
Court,   as   far   as   the   sentence   of   the   appellant   is
concerned.  He pointed out that the trial of the five other

1  2016 (7) SCC 1

Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2023
Page 3 of 9
 accused was separated.   This Court has confirmed their
conviction   and   sentence by  order   dated  23rd  September
2022 in S.L.P. (Crl.) Diary No.16999 of 2022.

5. We have perused the judgments of both the Courts
and depositions of material witnesses and, in particular,
the evidence of PW­3, PW­4 and PW­7, who were the eye­
witnesses.     We  find that in their cross­examination, no
material is brought on record to discredit their version.
After   appreciating   the   evidence   of   these   three
eyewitnesses,   the   Sessions   Court   and   the   High   Court
found   them   to   be   trustworthy   and   therefore,   their
evidence has been relied upon.

6. After   having   perused   their   evidence,   we   find   no

reason to take a contrary view.   Now, the only question
which survives is about the sentence. 

7. This   Court,   in   the   case   of  Shiva   Kumar   alias

Shiva alias Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka2,  had
an occasion to deal with the decision of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of  V. Sriharan1.   This
Court also considered its earlier decision in the case of
Swamy   Shraddananda   (2)   alias   Murali   Manohar
Mishra v. State of Karnataka3.  While considering the

2  2023 SCC Online SC 345
3  2008 (13) SCC 767

Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2023
Page 4 of 9
 law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of V.
Sriharan1,   in  Shiva   Kumar’s   case2,   this   Bench   in
paragraphs 11 to 13 held thus: 

“11.  What is held by the Constitution
Bench,   cannot   be   construed   in   a
narrow perspective.   The Constitution
Bench has held that there is a power
which can be derived from the IPC to
impose   a   fixed   term   sentence   or
modified punishment which can only
be exercised by the High Court or in
the   event   of   any   further   appeal,   by
the   Supreme   Court   and   not   by   any
other   Court   in   this   country.    In
addition,   the   Constitution   Bench   held
that   power   to   impose   a   modified
punishment   of   providing   any   specific
term of incarceration or till the end of
convict’s life as an alternative to death
penalty,   can   be   exercised   only   by   the
High   Court   and   the   Supreme   Court
and not by any other inferior Court. 

12. In a given case, while passing an
order   of   conviction   for   an   offence
which   is   punishable   with   death
penalty, the Trial Court may come to
a   conclusion   that   the   case   is   not   a
‘rarest of the  rare’ case.   In such a
situation,   depending   upon   the
punishment   prescribed   for   the
offence   committed,   the   Trial   Court
can   impose   other   punishment
specifically provided in Section 53 of

Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2023
Page 5 of 9
 the   IPC.     However,   when   a
Constitutional   Court   finds   that
though   a   case   is   not   falling   in   the
category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case,
considering   the   gravity   and   nature
of the offence and all other relevant
factors, it can always impose a fixed­
term sentence so that the benefit of
statutory   remission,   etc.   is   not
available   to   the   accused.    The
majority   view   in   the   case   of  V.
Sriharan1  cannot   be   construed   to
mean   that   such   a   power   cannot   be
exercised by the Constitutional Courts
unless   the   question   is   of   commuting
the death sentence.  This conclusion is
well   supported   by   what   the
Constitution Bench  held in  paragraph
104 of its decision, which reads thus:

“104. That apart, in most of such
cases   where   death   penalty   or   life
imprisonment   is   the   punishment
imposed   by   the   trial   court   and
confirmed by the Division Bench of
the   High   Court,   the   convict
concerned   will   get   an   opportunity
to get such verdict tested by filing
further   appeal   by   way   of   special
leave   to   this   Court.   By   way   of
abundant caution and as per the
prescribed   law   of   the   Code   and
the   criminal   jurisprudence,   we
can   assert   that   after   the   initial
finding of guilt of such specified
grave   offences   and   the

Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2023
Page 6 of 9
 imposition   of   penalty   either
death   or   life   imprisonment,
when   comes   under   the   scrutiny
of   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High   Court,   it   is   only   the   High
Court   which   derives   the   power
under   the   Penal   Code,   which
prescribes   the   capital   and
alternate   punishment,   to   alter
the   said   punishment   with   one
either   for   the   entirety   of   the
convict's  life  or  for  any specific
period   of   more   than   14   years,
say   20,   30   or   so   on   depending
upon   the   gravity   of   the   crime
committed   and   the   exercise   of
judicial   conscience   befitting
such   offence   found   proved   to
have been committed.”

13.  Hence,   we   have   no   manner   of

doubt that even in a case where capital
punishment   is   not   imposed   or   is   not
proposed,   the   Constitutional   Courts
can   always   exercise   the   power   of
imposing   a   modified   or   fixed­term
sentence   by   directing   that   a   life
sentence,   as   contemplated   by
“secondly”   in   Section   53   of   the   IPC,
shall be of a fixed period of more than
fourteen   years, for  example, of  twenty
years, thirty years and so on. The fixed
punishment cannot be for a period less
than 14 years in view of the mandate of
Section 433A of Cr.P.C.”    

Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2023
Page 7 of 9
                     (emphasis added)

8. Though the Sessions Court could not have imposed
a modified sentence by directing that the appellant shall
be imprisoned for the rest of his life, the High Court could
have certainly imposed such a punishment.

9. We   find   from   the   record   that   at   the   time   of   the

commission   of   the   offence,   the   age   of   the   present
appellant   was   only   20   years.     When   the   appellant   was
convicted by the Sessions Court, his age was 25 years.
As   of   now,   he   has   undergone   an   actual   sentence  for   a
period of about 15 years and 3 months.   The finding of
the Trial Court is that there was no material placed on
record by the prosecution to show that the appellant was
involved in any other offence.  However, this is a case of a
very brutal offence committed by a group of accused who
were armed with deadly weapons.  They have killed three
persons at a time and injured two.  

10. Looking at the gravity of the offence, the High Court
was   justified   in   imposing   a   fixed­term   sentence.     The
question is whether the appellant should be directed to
undergo imprisonment till the end of his life. 

11. After   weighing   all  the  relevant  factors  indicated  in

paragraph 9 above, we are of the opinion that a modified

Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2023
Page 8 of 9
 sentence for a period of 30 years deserves to be imposed
on the appellant.

12. Hence, we pass the following order:­

i. The   conviction   of   the   appellant,   under   the

impugned   judgments,   is   upheld.     However,   the
order of sentence is modified.  We direct that the
appellant   shall   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment
for a fixed period of 30 years.

ii. The   appellant   will   not   be   entitled   to   claim   any

statutory   remission   under   the   Code   of   Criminal
Procedure, 1973. 

13. The   appeal   is,   accordingly,   partly   allowed   with   no

order as to costs.
.…………………J.
   (Abhay S. Oka)

..…………………J.
      (Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
April 13, 2023.  

Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2023
Page 9 of 9