Full Judgment Text
2023 INSC 667
NonReportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2259 OF 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5823 of 2023)
Razia Khan … Appellant
versus
The State of M.P. … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 333, 353 and 451 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). The Sessions Court
convicted the appellant for all three offences. For the offences
punishable under Sections 451 and 353 of the IPC, the
appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year each and for the offence punishable under
Section 333 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years with a fine of ₹ 2,000/. By the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2023.08.03
16:20:59 IST
Reason:
impugned judgment, the High Court while upholding the
conviction, brought down the substantive sentence to
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023 Page 1 of 8
rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the three
th
offences. On 9 May 2023, this Court issued a notice
confined only to the sentencing part.
SUBMISSIONS
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant firstly
submitted that considering the facts of the case, the appellant
deserves to be granted the benefit of probation under Section
360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
‘Cr.P.C.’) and/or the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958.
Secondly, he submitted that the incident complained occurred
st
on 1 December 1992 and during the period of the last thirty
and a half years, during the pendency of the trial and appeal,
the appellant was all throughout on bail. The learned counsel
submitted that the appellant is a woman whose present age is
62 years. He submitted that considering the long passage of
time of thirty years and more from the date of the offence and
other relevant factors, even if the benefit of probation cannot
be given to the appellant, she deserves to be let off only on
payment of a fine.
3. Mr. D.S. Parmar, the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondent – State of M.P.
submitted that the appellant has misbehaved with PW1 who
is a public servant and obstructed her and PW6 from
discharging their official duties and therefore, in fact,
stringent punishment was called for. Moreover, the High
Court has already shown leniency by reducing the sentence.
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023 Page 2 of 8
OUR VIEW
It is necessary for us to note the nature of the offence.
4.
The appellant claims to be a social worker belonging to a
political party. A written complaint was made by Ms Sajni
st
Batra (PW1) on 1 December 1992 to the Police. She was
working as a Deputy Director in the Directorate of Women
and Child Development at Bhopal. At that time, Shri P.
Raghvan (PW6) was posted as the Commissioner in the
st
Directorate. On 1 December 1992, PW6 was conducting an
official meeting in his chamber in the presence of PW1 and
other officers. The case of the prosecution is that when the
meeting was in progress, suddenly, the appellant barged into
the chamber of PW6. She threw a file at PW6 and started
shouting in abusive language. When PW1 tried to stop her,
the appellant pushed her. As a result, the PW1 sustained a
fracture in the little right finger. The appellant claimed that
she was the sister of a Member of Parliament and threatened
to remove PW6 from his post. The Sessions Court and the
High Court believed the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and
especially of PW1 and PW6. Considering the nature of the
offence, we are of the considered view that the benefit of
probation can be extended to the appellant.
th
As noted in our order dated 9 May 2023, no case was
5.
made out to interfere with the order of conviction and the
notice was confined to sentence. Therefore, the question is
about the quantum of sentence. Looking at the findings
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023 Page 3 of 8
recorded by the Sessions Court and the High Court, the
following are the relevant factors for deciding the question of
showing leniency to the appellant:
a. For espousing the cause of the labourers, the
appellant visited the office of the Directorate;
b. Evidence of PW1 and PW2 Hemraj (a peon
working in the Office of the Commissioner) indicated
that the appellant had sent a slip of her name to PW6
which was kept on the table of PW6 as she wanted to
meet him. After waiting for a considerable time, as she
was not allowed to meet PW6, she forced her entry to
his cabin and complained that she was made to wait;
c. PW1 admitted that the appellant was not annoyed
with her. She stated that the appellant did not indulge
in any scuffle with her. When she tried to stop the
appellant, she was pushed by the appellant and that is
how she received injury to her little right finger;
The incident is more than thirty years old;
d.
e. During the last thirty and a half years, when the
trial and appeal were pending, the appellant was all
throughout on bail. Even in this appeal, an exemption
has been granted to her from the requirement of
surrendering;
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023 Page 4 of 8
f. During this long period of more than 30 long
years, there was no allegation of any objectionable
activity by her; and
g. The appellant is a female whose present age is 62
years.
6. At the same time, we cannot ignore that the appellant
indulged in the objectionable act of entering the chamber of
PW6 who was discharging his official duty as a public
servant. At that time, PW6 was holding a meeting with the
officials including PW1. The appellant abused PW6 by using
very bad language. At that time, PW1 tried to stop the
appellant but the appellant pushed PW1. As a result, PW1
suffered a fracture in her little right finger. That is how both
Courts have held the appellant guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 333, 353 and 451 of the IPC.
7. The offence punishable under Section 333 of voluntarily
causing grievous hurt to deter a public servant from
discharging his duty attracts punishment by imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years
with a fine. The offence punishable under Section 353 of
using criminal force to deter a public servant from
discharging his duty attracts punishment of imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with a fine, or with both. Lastly, the offence punishable
under Section 451 of committing house trespass in order to
commit any offence punishable with imprisonment, attracts
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023 Page 5 of 8
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years and a fine.
Considering the seriousness of the offence punishable
8.
under Section 333 of the IPC and since the punishment
prescribed is both of imprisonment of either description and a
fine, obviously, the appellant cannot be let off only on a fine.
However, considering the circumstances set out in paragraph
5 above, we are of the view that the appellant deserves to be
shown leniency when it comes to the substantive sentence.
The distinct factors set out in paragraph no.5, taken
individually, do not constitute a ground by itself to show
leniency. For example, only because an accused is on bail for
a long time, it is no ground by itself to show leniency. It is
only one of the several factors to be considered. But we have
considered these factors cumulatively. Hence, we propose to
bring down the sentence of the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 333 to simple imprisonment for one
₹
month. We propose to impose a fine of 30,000/ for the said
offence.
The offence punishable under Section 353 provides for
9.
punishment by imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with a fine, or with both.
We, therefore, propose to bring down her sentence to a fine of
₹
20,000/. As regards the offence under Section 451 of the
IPC, if the offence is not committed with the intention of
committing theft, it is punishable by imprisonment of either
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023 Page 6 of 8
description for a period of two years and to pay a fine.
Looking at the factors set out in paragraph 5, we propose to
sentence the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for
₹
one month and to pay a fine of 25,000/.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of
conviction of the appellant by both the Courts for offences
punishable under Sections 333, 353 and 451 of the IPC is
confirmed. For the offence punishable under Section 333 of
the IPC, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for
one month and pay a fine of ₹ 30,000/ within one month
from today. For the offence punishable under Section 451 of
the IPC, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for
one month and to pay a fine of ₹ 25,000/ within a period of
one month from today. We bring down the sentence for the
offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC by directing
the appellant to pay a fine of ₹ 20,000/ within a period of one
month from today. The fine amounts as aforesaid shall be
deposited in the Trial Court. The fine amounts will be
inclusive of the fine of ₹ 2,000/ directed to be paid by the
trial Court. The substantive sentences shall run
concurrently.
11. In default of payment of the fine imposed in each case,
the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
12. Out of the fine amount, a sum of ₹ 25,000/ shall be
paid over to the injured witness PW1 Ms Sajni Batra by way
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023 Page 7 of 8
of compensation. The rest of the fine amount shall go to the
State.
We grant time of one month to the appellant to
13.
surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing the
punishment. The appeal is partly allowed on above terms.
…………………….J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
.…………………...J.
(Sanjay Karol)
New Delhi;
August 3, 2023.
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023 Page 8 of 8