Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7414 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1118 of 2018)
(D.No.27815 of 2018)
Haribhau ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Criminal
Appeal No.258 of 2006 whereby the High Court while
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.09.04
17:16:06 IST
Reason:
allowing the appeal with respect to other accused
1
Babarao Shriram Chaudhary dismissed the appeal
with respect to the appellant herein and confirmed his
conviction and sentence awarded to him by order
rd
dated 10.04.2006 passed by the 3 Adhoc Additional
Sessions Judge, Washim in Atrocities Case No.28 of
2005 by which the appellant and Babarao had been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
353, 294 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and
had directed them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
three months with fine of Rs.500/ under Section
353/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month
with fine of Rs.200/ under Section 504/34 IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine of
Rs.100/ under Section 294/34 IPC. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
2
3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that Bala
Saheb Ingole (PW1) was serving as a teacher in Zilla
Parishad Primary School at Januna, Tahsil Karanja
District Washim (MH). On 05.04.2005, the appellant
(Haribhau) and Babarao, who were Sarpanch and
Member of the Gram Panchayat, Januna respectively
visited the School and asked Bala Saheb as to why he
came late in the School. Bala Saheb offered his
explanation.
4. The explanation offered by Bala Saheb did not
satisfy the appellant and Babarao, therefore, they
asked Bala Saheb for book of circleincharge
maintained by the School. Since Bala Saheb did not
give the book, the appellant (Haribhau) caught hold of
his shirt's collar and while using abusive language
gave kicks and blows to him. They also gave threat to
Bala Saheb for causing injuries endangering his life.
3
5. It is this incident which gave rise to lodging of
FIR which was followed by the prosecution of the
appellant (Haribhau) and Babarao for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 294
read with Section 34 of IPC and in addition under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”).
6. By order dated 10.04.2006, the Additional
Sessions Judge, Washim convicted the appellant and
Babarao for the offences punishable under Sections
353, 504 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC and
awarded the sentences mentioned above. The
appellant and Babarao were, however, acquitted for
commission of the offence punishable under Section 3
(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act.
4
7. The appellant and Babarao felt aggrieved by the
order of conviction and sentence and filed appeal
before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. By
impugned order, the High Court allowed the appeal
with respect to Babarao and acquitted him of all the
charges leveled against him.
8. So far as the appellant (Haribhau) is concerned,
his appeal was dismissed. In other words, the
appellant's conviction and the sentence awarded by
the Additional Sessions Judge was upheld giving rise
to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by
Haribhau in this Court.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant
was essentially one. According to him, out of total jail
sentence awarded to the appellant, he has already
5
undergone one month actual jail sentence and since
then he is on bail.
11. It was his submission that having regard to the
nature of the offence committed by the appellant, his
age (60 years), his spotless career throughout without
any criminal antecedents and lastly, the fact that he
has already undergone one month jail sentence in
relation to the offence committed 13 years back, hence
this Court while upholding the appellant’s conviction
may consider proper to alter the sentence awarded to
the appellant and reduce it to the extent the period
already undergone in jail by him and instead impose
more fine on him to meet the ends of justice.
12. In reply, learned counsel for the respondentState
urged for upholding of the impugned order.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force
6
in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant.
14. In our considered opinion, firstly, taking into
account that the appellant has already undergone one
month’s jail sentence out of three months awarded to
him, secondly, the fact that the incident in question is
quite old and seems to have occurred at the spur of
the moment, thirdly, the appellant has no criminal
antecedent in his past life and lastly, he is not
required in any other criminal case except the one in
question which the appellant fairly did not deny
having committed and rightly did not challenge his
conviction, it is considered to be just and proper to
alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from
three months to the extent of period of one month
which was already undergone by him and instead
7
enhance the total fine amount awarded under different
Sections from Rs.800/ to Rs.15,000/.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The jail
sentence awarded to the appellant by the Courts below
is altered and is accordingly reduced to the extent of
period of one month which already undergone by him.
16. In other words, the appellant is now not required
to serve any more jail sentence than what he has
already undergone and at the same time the amount of
the total fine awarded by the Courts below is enhanced
from Rs.800/ to Rs.15,000/ for being paid to the
complainant Bala Saheb Ingole.
17. Failure to deposit the fine amount within one
month would result in reviving the jail sentence
awarded by the Courts below and the appellant will
8
have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence
awarded by the Courts below.
18. Let the amount of fine be deposited by the
appellant in Trial Court within one month from the
date of this order for being paid to the Complainant.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
New Delhi;
September 04, 2018
9