Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1499 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2353 of 2017)
Sahebrao Arjun Hon … APPELLANT(S)
v.
Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon & Ors. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted.
1.
2. The appellant is the complainant who is one of the victims
of the offence subject matter of this appeal. The respondent nos.1
to 4 are the accused nos.7 to 10. On account of death of the
respondent no.3accused no.9, this appeal stands abated as
against him.
Signature Not Verified
3. The respondent nos.1 to 4 were convicted by a Court of
Digitally signed by
BALA PARVATHI
Date: 2022.09.06
18:07:20 IST
Reason:
Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections
1
326, 324 and 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). For the offence punishable under Section
326 read with Section 34 of IPC, the learned Trial Judge
sentenced the respondent nos.1 to 4 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of
Rs.3,000/ each. In default of payment of fine, they were
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months each. For
the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of
IPC, the said respondents were sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/ each. In default of payment of fine, they were
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
For the offence punishable under Section 447 read with Section
34 of IPC, they were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/ each and
in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each. All
the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Out
of the fine amount paid by them, the learned Trial Judge directed
that compensation of Rs.1,000/ shall be paid to the appellant
(PW2) and to the other injured Arjun Dada Hon (PW8). The
learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of
the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in appeal. The respondent nos.1 to 4
2
preferred a revision application before the High Court. By the
th
impugned judgment dated 19 December, 2016, while confirming
the conviction, the substantive sentence imposed on them of
rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable
under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC was brought down
to rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence
punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34, the
respondent nos.1 to 4 were let off on the sentence already
undergone by them. However, the respondent nos. 1,2 and 4
were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ each to the two
victims as compensation in terms of Section 357A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’).
th
4. According to the prosecution case, on 26 March 1992 at
about 6.30 pm, when the appellant came near the pan shop of
the accused no.11, he was called by the said accused. After
getting his tractor repaired, the appellant came to the shop of the
accused no.11. It is alleged that the accused no.11 objected to
the appellant being in company of one Vithobanana. Accused
no.11 described the said Vithobanana as a beggar. The appellant
responded by telling the accused no.11 that he had no business
to question him as the said Vithobanana was his relative. At that
3
time, the respondent no.1 – accused no. 7 arrived at the spot and
there was exchange of words between the appellant and the
respondent no.1. At that time, Arjun Dada Hon (PW8) who is
also a victim of offence came there and tried to pacify the
respondent no.1. It is alleged that at that time, the accused
no.11 caught hold of collar of PW8 and abused him. When the
appellant tried to intervene, the accused no.11 slapped him. The
incident ended there as the persons concerned dispersed from
the spot.
5. On the same day, at about 77.30 pm, the appellant and
PW8 were sitting on a platform in front of their house. At that
time, PW5 Karna and his son also came there. At about 88.30
pm, the respondent nos.1 to 4 arrived there and started abusing
the appellant and PW8. At that time, the respondent no.1 was
carrying a stick in his hand. He gave a blow of the stick on the
appellant’s head. The respondent no. 2 gave a blow by using a
scythe on the neck and back of the appellant. It is the case of the
prosecution that even Arjun (PW8) was assaulted by the said
respondents by using sticks. It is the case of the prosecution that
one Sachin (PW9) and Madhukar (PW4) also suffered minor
injuries.
4
6. The learned Trial Judge believed the testimony of the
appellant (PW2) and the other injured witness Arjun (PW8)
which was duly supported by the medical evidence as well as the
evidence regarding recovery of the weapons of assault at the
instance of the accused.
7. In support of the present appeal, Shri Shivaji M. Jadhav,
the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
notwithstanding the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the
appellant and PW8, the Trial Court showed leniency while
imposing sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment for
the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34.
The learned counsel submitted that the appellant suffered 11
injuries including depressed fracture on left parietal region. He
suffered life threatening injuries on left parietal region and left
side of the neck. He pointed out that the prosecution examined
Dr. Vijay Gyanba Kshirsagar (PW12) who deposed that the
condition of the appellant was serious when he was brought to
him for treatment. The learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that there was absolutely no reason for the
High Court to reduce the substantive sentence to the period of
one year.
5
8. Shri Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the
respondent nos.1,2 and 4 submitted that if this Court is inclined
to consider the submissions made by the appellant on merits, the
revision application may be remanded to the High Court. He
submitted that though submissions were made before the High
Court on merits of the conviction, effectively what is considered
by the High Court is only the submission made on behalf of the
said respondents in the alternative for substantially reducing the
sentence. He would, therefore, submit that the prayer for
enhancement made by the appellant cannot be considered. If at
all it is to be considered, the revision application may be
remanded to the High Court.
9. After the submissions were substantially heard, we had
suggested to the parties to explore possibility of an amicable
settlement. However, the learned counsel reported to the Court
that there is no possibility of any amicable settlement.
10. We have given careful consideration to the submissions
made across the bar. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court
have concurrently found that the offences punishable under
Section 326 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with
Section 34 of IPC have been duly established by the prosecution.
6
Though while deciding the revision application, the High Court
may not have elaborately recorded reasons, in paragraph 4 of the
impugned judgment, after considering the evidence on record, the
learned Judge of the High Court has expressed a general
agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the two
Courts. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court was not expected to record detailed reasons for concurring
with the reasons recorded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court.
Perusal of paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment shows that the
submission regarding reduction of sentence was made in addition
to the contentions raised on merits.
11. The High Court has chosen to take a very lenient view by
reducing the substantive sentence for the offences punishable
under Section 326 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read
with Section 34 of IPC. The substantive sentence of the offence
under Section 326 has been reduced to one year. As far as
Section 324 of IPC is concerned, the respondent nos.1,2 and 4
have been let off on the sentence already undergone.
12 . As far as the sentencing is concerned, the judicial discretion
is always guided by various considerations such as seriousness
7
of the crime, the circumstances in which crime was committed
and the antecedents of the accused. The Court is required to go
by the principle of proportionality. If undue sympathy is shown
by reducing the sentence to the minimum, it may adversely affect
the faith of people in efficacy of law. It is the gravity of crime
which is the prime consideration for deciding what should be the
appropriate punishment.
13. Perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that there
is no finding recorded regarding the existence of any relevant
mitigating circumstance in favour of the respondent nos.1,2 and
4. It is always the duty of the Court to balance aggravating
circumstances and mitigating circumstances at the time of
imposing sentence. Perusal of the findings recorded by the Trial
Court shows that the appellant suffered total 11 injuries on his
person. For four injuries, stitches were required to be applied.
The evidence of Dr.Shinde (PW11) describes the injuries in
detail. On the basis of Xray films produced on record, Dr.Shinde
pointed out that depressed fracture on left parietal region was
seen. Dr.Kshirsagar (PW12), under whom the appellant was
admitted as indoor patient has stated that the condition of the
8
appellant was serious when he was brought to him. In fact, the
case of the prosecution is that even a dying declaration of the
appellant was recorded. Even the other injured witness Arjun
(PW8) suffered five injuries out of which one was on frontal
parietal area. As against this, there are no major mitigating
circumstances in favour of the respondent nos.1,2 and 4.
14. The maximum sentence for the offence punishable under
Section 326 of IPC is imprisonment for life. Even after
considering the nature of the serious injuries sustained by the
appellant, the Trial Court took a lenient view by imposing
sentence of imprisonment of only 3 years. There was no
provocation for the respondent nos.1 to 4 to attack the appellant
and the other victims. They came well prepared with the weapons
of assault in front of the house of the appellant where the
incident took place. Looking to the gravity of the offence, there
was no warrant for showing leniency. Even though a case is
made out for grant of enhancement in sentence or at least to
restore the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, it must be
th
remembered that the impugned judgment is of 19 December
2016 and the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 must have undergone
9
the entire sentence of one year. The incident is of the year 1992.
Hence, we propose to enhance their sentence by six months’
simple imprisonment. Moreover, we propose to grant a
reasonable compensation to the victims in addition to the
compensation made payable by the High Court. Therefore, we
propose to direct the respondent nos. 1,2 and 4 to pay an
additional sum of Rs.40,000/ to the present appellant and the
injured witness, Arjun Dada Hon (PW8).
15. By modifying the impugned judgment of the High Court,
we direct that in addition to the substantive sentence imposed by
the High Court for the offence punishable under section 326 read
with section 34 of IPC, the respondent no.1,2 and 4 shall
undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The respondent
nos.1,2 and 4 shall surrender before the Trial Court within six
weeks from today to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
in addition to the sentence imposed by the High Court. The
respondent nos.1,2 and 4 shall deposit the total sum of
Rs.40,000/ with the Trial Court within a period of one month
from today. The officer in charge of Kopargaon Police Station
10
shall ensure that the additional compensation is equally
distributed to the appellant and Arjun Dada Hon (PW8).
16 .To the above extent, the appeal is partly allowed, with no
order as to costs.
....…………………J.
(SURYA KANT)
….…………………J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
New Delhi;
September 6, 2022.
11