Alternation of sentence

--- Alteration of sentence --- Death penalty --- Mitigating circumstance --- Age of offender --- Youth of an offender, even if he does not fall within the statutory definition of a “juvenile”, is a relevant mitigating factor to be accorded due weight while determining the appropriate sentence --- Where the offender had only recently crossed the threshold of majority, such circumstance has a direct bearing on the quantum of sentence.

--- Ss. 302 & 324 --- Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd --- Ocular and medical evidence --- Motive not proved --- Recovery of weapon doubtful --- Sentencing --- Life imprisonment instead of death penalty --- Scope --- Accused was alleged to have murdered the brother of complainant and injured others within the view of complainant and others --- Motive stated in the FIR was that the accused had previously killed the brother and uncle of complainant, however, the matter was subsequently patched up between the parties --- As per compromise, accused was directed not to come to the town --- From the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, as well as the depositions of the various witnesses and other factors, it stood proved that the accused killed the victim and injured another --- The ocular and medical evidence supported each other --- As per medical evidence, the victim was admitted to the hospital for six days --- In respect of the deceased, firearm injury No. 1 clearly denoted that it was inflicted on the middle part of the chest, firearm injury No. 2 was an entry wound on the left side of the upper lip, while firearm injury No. 3 denoted an entry wound in the middle part of the right arm --- The medical report also stated that lungs and heart were badly ruptured, and the death occurred due to severe bleeding --- Evidence of motive in the shape of compromise was not produced --- Recovery of weapon was also inconsequential as the report of Forensic Laboratory merely denoted that the gun was in working condition but no evidence connecting it with the commission of offence was produced --- The manner in which the accused was allegedly arrested with the gun also rendered the recovery doubtful --- Recovery of the motorcycle was not properly addressed, as no record relating to its ownership or registration book was ever placed on record --- Case fells within the category warranting life imprisonment rather than the death penalty --- Petitions were dismissed.

--- Ss. 376 & 496-B --- Rape --- Fornication --- Conversion of conviction --- Scope --- The accused was not initially charged with section 496-B and was charged under section 376, it would not be appropriate merely for the purposes of reducing the sentence to modify a conviction under section 376 to a conviction under section 496-B which would be against the basic principles of law which states that to convict a person under a particular offense all the ingredients of that offense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

--- Ss. 376 & 496-B --- Rape --- Fornication --- Conversion of conviction --- Scope --- The court cannot convict a person on the basis of preponderance of evidence or on mere assumptions that if one particular act is not proved, meaning thereby in cases where a victim fails to prove the offence of rape, it will not automatically establish the consent of the victim.

--- Alteration of conviction --- Lesser offence --- Prerequisites --- Standard of proof --- Scope --- If an act carries two punishments listed under two or more offences under penalizing statute(s), the lesser can be awarded in view of mitigating circumstances --- However, this applies to the situation where the act squarely falls within both of the said offences and the scenario would completely change if the required ingredients of the offence to which it will be altered are not fulfilled --- The standard of proof in criminal cases is that the prosecution shall establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, unlike the preponderance of evidence in civil matters --- To alter the conviction under one provision to another will mandatorily require that the basic ingredients of the provision to which it will be altered must be fulfilled beyond reasonable doubt.