/2023 INSC 0287/
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   15 th
  March   2006   at   Village   Khaira   Kasar,   PS
Jujharnagar.     It   is   alleged   that   the   accused   persons
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 20 th
 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   23 rd
  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 Karnataka 2
,  
had
an occasion to deal with the decision of the Constitution
Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   V.   Sriharan 1
.     This
Court   also   considered   its   earlier   decision   in   the   case   of
Swamy   Shraddananda   (2)   alias   Murali   Manohar
Mishra   v.   State   of   Karnataka 3
.     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.
Sriharan 1
,   in   Shiva   Kumar’s   case 2
,   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.
Sriharan 1  
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