IMPORTANT POINT
Where appellant accused caused grievous injury to complainant intentionally, provisions of section 360 r\w 361 of CrPC held not attracted and appellant accused was not entitled to grant of benefit of probation.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure code, 1973 – Section 360, 361 – Prosecution of appellant accused for voluntarily causing simple hurt and grievous injuries to complainant by assaulting him with a stone – Conviction and sentence by trial Court u\s 323 and 325 IPC – Appellate Court on appeal while acquitting appellant for offence u\s 323 IPC confirmed conviction u\s 325 IPC – However sentence of SI was reduced from one year to six months - Revision - Reduction of sentence to SI for 1 month by High Court – Appeal – Plea of appellant that courts below while convicting him failed to consider provisions of 360 of CrPC for grant of probation to an offender in certain cases – Evidence to show that Appellant-accused had caused grievous injury to complainant intentionally – Decision in case of Om Prakesh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana that a benefit of probation is to be granted to accused where offence in question was his first offence held inapplicable to facts of case as in that case mensrea was absent – No dispute that appellant had undergone and had remained in custody for about fifteen days – Even though in facts and circumstances of case, provisions of Section 360 r\w Section 361 of CrPC held not applicable – However held not appropriate to direct appellant to surrender and to suffer remaining sentence for about a month - Substantive sentence which appellant had already undergone held sufficient to meet ends of justice - However, appellant ordered to pay an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- to injured complainant. (Paras 13 to 17)
       Facts of the case :
       The Appellant accused herein in the instant case was convicted and sentenced u\s 323 and 325 IPC for voluntarily causing simple hurt and grievous injuries to complainant by assaulting him with a stone. Appellate Court on appeal while acquitting appellant for offence u\s 323 IPC confirmed conviction u\s 325 IPC and sentence of SI was reduced from one year to six months. On revision, sentence was reduced to SI for 1 month by High Court.
       Present appeal has been filed by appellant against said order of High Court. Plea of appellant that courts below while convicting him failed to consider provisions of 360 of CrPC for grant of probation to an offender in certain cases.
       Findings of the Court :
       The Court held that appellant-accused had caused grievous injury to complainant intentionally. Decision in case of Om Prakesh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana that a benefit of probation is to be granted to accused where offence in question was his first offence held inapplicable to facts of case as in that case mensrea was absent. Appellant had undergone and had remained in custody for about fifteen days. Even though in facts and circumstances of case, provisions of Section 360 r\w Section 361 of CrPC held not applicable. However held not appropriate to direct appellant to surrender and to suffer remaining sentence for about a month. Substantive sentence which appellant had already undergone held sufficient to meet ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

C.K. THAKKER, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karantaka at Bangalore on July 20, 2006 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1188 of 2003.

3.Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on or about July 19, 1997 at about 3.15 p.m., appellant-accused had voluntarily caused simple hurt to complainant-Manju Ramayya Shetty in front of Olaga Mantapa of Murdeshwar. The appellant also said to have assaulted the complainant with a stone resulting in grievous injuries to the complainant. Moreover, the appellant-accused intentionally insulted the complainant by abusing him in filthy language thereby giving him provocation knowing full well that such provocation would make the complainant to break public peace or to commit other offences. A complaint was filed on July 20, 1997 and after usual investigation, charge was framed against the accused on November 13, 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhatkal for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 504, Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Criminal Case No. 2488 of 1997. The accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge.

4.The prosecution in support of the case, examined eight witnesses including injured complainant Manju Ramayya Shetty. The trial Court, after appreciating the prosecution evidence, by its judgment, dated March 08, 1999 held that it was proved by the prosecution that the accused caused simple as well as grievous hurt to the complainant, and thereby, he had committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325, IPC. Regarding the third charge, however, that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 504, IPC, according to the Court, the prosecution was not able to establish it and the accused was ordered to be acquitted. So far as sentence is concerned, the trial Court awarded Simple Imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC. He was also ordered Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 325, IPC. The Court also ordered that out of the fine amount so received, the injured-complainant will be paid compensation of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).

5.Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Karwar being Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1999. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence and hearing the arguments, acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. He, however, confirmed the order of conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 325, IPC. The Appellate Court, however, was of the view that it was a fit case to reduce sentence of Simple Imprisonment from one year to six months. The appellate Court also directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant who had sustained grievous injuries, independently of what the trial Court awarded. The sentence of fine and compensation passed by the trial Court was confirmed.

6.The appellant challenged even that order passed by the Appellate Court by filing Revision Petition in the High Court. The High Court confirmed the order of conviction. The High Court also partly allowed the Revision by reducing sentence and ordering the appellant to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1= months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in addition to what was ordered by the Courts below. The appellant has approached this Court against the said order passed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 839

IMPORTANT POINTWhere appellant accused caused grievous injury to complainant intentionally, provisions of section 360 r\w 361 of CrPC held not attracted and appellant accused was not entitled to grant of benefit of probation.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where appellant accused caused grievous injury to complainant intentionally, provisions of section 360 r\w 361 of CrPC held not attracted and appellant accused was not entitled to grant of benefit of probation.