Can an Appeal for Enhancement of Sentence under Section 377(i)(b) CrPC Be Withdrawn Once the Convict Has Served the Term?

High Court of Sikkim affirms that, where the prosecution opts not to press an enhancement application and the respondent has already undergone the sentence, permission to withdraw under Section 377(i)(b) CrPC serves the ends of justice and operates as persuasive authority for similar withdrawals.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name Crl. A. No.17/2023 of STATE OF SIKKIM Vs JASBIR SINGH
CNR SKHC010000342023
Decision Date 18-08-2025
Disposal Nature Disposed of as withdrawn
Court High Court of Sikkim
Bench Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Judgment Author Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai
Concurring Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Type of Law Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Questions of Law Withdrawal of appeal under Section 377(i)(b) CrPC for enhancement of sentence
Ratio Decidendi When the prosecution, by application under Section 377(i)(b) CrPC, elects not to press an appeal for enhancement of sentence—and the respondent has already served the term—the ends of justice are met by permitting withdrawal.
Facts as Summarised by the Court The respondent was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. A compliance report confirmed he has undergone that term and received ₹20,000 for travel expenses. The State filed IA No.02 seeking withdrawal of its enhancement appeal.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Persuasive For Other High Courts considering withdrawal applications under Section 377(i)(b) CrPC

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Confirms that appeals under Section 377(i)(b) CrPC for enhancement of sentence can be withdrawn with the court’s permission once the term is served.
  • Affirms the “ends of justice” principle as basis for allowing withdrawal of criminal appeals.
  • Illustrates that compliance with orders (e.g., payment of costs to the respondent) may bolster an application to withdraw.
  • Serves as persuasive authority for practitioners seeking to withdraw appeals where further prosecution is unnecessary.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  1. The Court considered IA No.02 of 2025 filed under Section 377(i)(b) CrPC by the Additional Public Prosecutor, seeking permission to withdraw the appeal for sentence enhancement.
  2. A compliance report demonstrated that the respondent had completed the ten-year sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC and received ₹20,000 for travel costs.
  3. The prosecution expressly declined to press the enhancement petition in light of those circumstances.
  4. Applying the ends-of-justice principle, the Court held that permitting withdrawal was appropriate and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (State of Sikkim)

  • Filed IA under Section 377(i)(b) CrPC to withdraw the appeal for enhancement, as respondent has already undergone ten years’ imprisonment.
  • Sought disposal of the petition as withdrawn, in the absence of any further interest in pressing the enhancement.

Respondent (Jasbir Singh)

  • Present in person; no additional submissions in view of the prosecution’s application.

Factual Background

Jasbir Singh was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment by the trial court. The State appealed for enhancement of sentence and filed IA No.02 under Section 377(i)(b) CrPC. A compliance report showed that the respondent had already served the full term and received ₹20,000 towards travel expenses from Rajasthan to Sikkim. The State then applied to withdraw the enhancement appeal.

Statutory Analysis

  • Section 377(i)(b) CrPC requires the High Court’s permission to withdraw an appeal filed by the State.
  • The Court’s grant of withdrawal was grounded in the prosecution’s election not to press the appeal and the fulfillment of the sentence, invoking the ends-of-justice discretion.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

  • Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan concurred with the order of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai.
  • No dissenting opinion was recorded.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.