Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra, JJ.
Sumer Singh – Appellant
Versus
Surajbhan Singh and others – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 942 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 9658 of 2009)
Decided On : 22-04-2014
(1999) 8 SCC 325; (1998) 3 SCC 38; (2002) 5 SCC 424; (1980) 3 SCC 141; (2004) 11 SCC 585 – Relied upon
AIR 1955 SC 633 – Referred
(b) Constitution of India – Article 136 – An injured aggrieved party can prefer an appeal by special leave – Secondly, in an appeal by State for enhancement of sentence, an accused is entitled to plead for his acquittal. (Para 14)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 326 – Victims in lawful possession of their land – Victims unarmed – All accused persons armed – Plea of private defence not established – Assault by accused on victims established – Conviction u/s 326 justified. (Para 17)
AIR 1971 SC 1857; (2010) 7 SCC 477; (2014) 4 SCALE 724 – Referred
(d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 326 – Sentence – Accused chopping off victim’s hand from the wrist – High Court reducing sentence to seven days – Not justified. (Para 28)
(2014) 4 SCALE 724; AIR 1991 SC 8; (1991) 3 SCC 471; (1987) 3 SCC 80; (1996) 2 SCC 175; AIR 2000 SC 1470; (2010) 12 SCC 532; (2013) 7 SCC 77; (2012) 8 SCC 734; (2012) 4 SC 516; (2013) 9 SCC 509; (2013) 9SCC 516 – Relied upon
(e) Administration of Justice – Criminal justice delivery – Sentencing – Court has the discretion in imposing sentence – At the same time, it is duty bound to balance it with the gravity of offence. (Para 28 to 31)
AIR 1981 SC 2085; AIR 2005 SC 15 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
While Sumer Singh, PW-4, Janak Singh, PW-5, and his younger brother Jai Singh, PW-7, availing a tractor of another person, were carrying out certain agricultural operation in their field, accused persons, namely, Surajbhan Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Vikram Singh, Surendra Singh and Prithvi Raj alias Pappu, being armed with weapons, arrived at the field. Accused Surajbhan Singh was carrying a sword and other accused persons were having lathis.
Accused persons assaulted all the above persons in which the hand of Sumer Singh got chopped off from the wrist.
Trial Judge convicted Surajbhan Singh under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him for five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 447 IPC with sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment; under Section 326 IPC four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323/149 IPC three months rigorous imprisonment.
Other accused persons were also convicted and sentenced variously.
The High Court, as far as Surajbhan Singh is concerned, found him guilty for offence under Sections 308, 148, 447, 326 and 323/149 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of seven days which he had already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. As far as other accused-appellants were concerned, the High Court found them guilty for offences under Sections 324/149, 147, 447 and 323 IPC and considering their age, restricted the sentence to the period already undergone in respect of some and released some of them under Sections 4 and 12 of Probation of Offenders Act. As far as accused-appellants Prithvi Raj @ Pappu and Vikram Singh are concerned a fine amount of Rs.15,000/- was imposed. The High Court has further directed that the fine amount by all the accused persons to be deposited within three months with the stipulation that the same shall be paid to the injured Sumer Singh and on their failure to deposit the amount of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not justified.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. The centripodal question that arises for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, preferred by the injured, is whether the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, while converting the conviction of the respondent- accused from one under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 308 IPC and sustaining the conviction under Sections 148, 147, 326 and 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is justified in restricting the period of sentence to seven days which the respondent had already undergone and to impose a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment of two years.
2. The factual score, as has been undraped, is that on 19.7.1982 about 3.30 p.m. when Sumer Singh, PW-4, Janak Singh, PW-5, and his younger brother Jai Singh, PW-7, having availed a tractor of another person, were carrying out certain agricultural operation in their field, accused persons, namely, Surajbhan Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Vikram Singh, Surendra Singh and Prithvi Raj alias Pappu, being armed with weapons, arrived at the field. Accused Surajbhan Singh was carrying a sword and other accused persons were having lathis. On coming to the field, the accused persons stopped the tractor and Sumer Singh, PW-4, and Mool Singh, PW-6, came to defend the driver of the tractor. At that juncture, accused Vikram Singh gave a lathi blow on Mool Singh, PW-6, and Surajbhan inflicted a sword injury on the left elbow of Mool Singh, PW-6. Thereafter, when he attacked Sumer Singh on the head with the sword, he put his hand in defence, as a consequence of which the sword hit the wrist of the left hand due to which the hand got chopped off from the wrist and Sumer Singh lost his consciousness and collapsed. As the narration would further show, the accused persons assaulted others and left the place. Jai Singh, PW-7, and the driver of the tractor took the injured persons to Rajgarh Hospital where they were admitted and the First Information Report was lodged by Janak Singh, PW-5, and on the base of the F.I.R. crime was registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 326 and 447 IPC.
3. After the criminal law was set in motion, the investigation commenced and, eventually, the charge-sheet was placed before the learned Magistrate, who committed the matter to the Court of Session. The accused persons refuted the allegations and stated that they had been falsely implicated due to land disputes. Because of such a plea, matter was tried by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar. During the trial the prosecution examined 24 witnesses and brought on record 37 documents which are marked as exhibits. The defence, in support of its plea, examined two witnesses and got certain documents exhibited.
4. The learned trial Judge appreciating the evidence on record, convicted Surajbhan Singh under Section 307 IPC for five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 447 IPC three months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 326 IPC four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323/149 IPC three months rigorous imprisonment. As far as other accused persons, namely, Prithvi Raj @ Pappu, Surendra Singh, Vikram Singh and Bhanwar Singh are concerned, each one of them was convicted under Section 147 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, under Section 447 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 307/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year and for offence under Section 323 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for six months with the stipulation that all the sentences would be concurrent.
5. Grieved by the aforesaid jud
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
