Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 891

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Sahebrao Arjun Hon – Appellant
Versus
Raosaheb S/o Kashinath Hon – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1499 of 2022, SLP (Criminal) No. 2353 of 2017
Decided On : 06-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivaji M Jadhav, Adv. for M/S. S.M. Jadhav And Company
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Mr. Mahesh P Shinde, Adv. Ms. Rucha A Pande, Adv. Mr. Raagav Raghul, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, AoR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Sentence – Court is required to go by principle of proportionality – If undue sympathy is shown by reducing sentence to minimum, it may adversely affect faith of people in efficacy of law – It is gravity of crime which is prime consideration for deciding what should be appropriate punishment.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 326, 324 and 447 read with Section 34 – Grievous hurt and criminal hurt – Common intention – Just sentence – There is no finding recorded regarding existence of any relevant mitigating circumstance in favour of respondents – It is always duty of Court to balance aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances at the time of imposing sentence – While exercising revisional jurisdiction, High Court was not expected to record detailed reasons for concurring with reasons recorded by Trial Court and Appellate Court – High Court has chosen to take a very lenient view by reducing substantive sentence for offences punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC – Substantive sentence of offence under Section 326 has been reduced to one year – As far as Section 324 of IPC is concerned, respondents have been let off on sentence already undergone – As far as sentencing is concerned, judicial discretion is always guided by various considerations such as seriousness of crime, circumstances in which crime was committed and antecedents of accused – Court is required to go by principle of proportionality – If undue sympathy is shown by reducing sentence to minimum, it may adversely affect faith of people in efficacy of law – It is gravity of crime which is prime consideration for deciding what should be appropriate punishment – Looking to gravity of 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 sentence imposed by Trial Court, impugned judgment is of 19th December 2016 and respondents must have undergone entire sentence of one year – Incident is of year 1992 – Respondents directed to pay additional sum of Rs.40,000/- to present appellant and injured witness. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Respondent nos.1 to 4 were convicted by Court of Judicial Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 326, 324 and 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, 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 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 substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. By impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2016, High Court, while confirming 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.
Findings of Court:
In addition to the substantive sentence imposed by 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 Trial Court within six weeks from today to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in addition to the sentence imposed by the High Court. Respondent nos.1,2 and 4 shall deposit the total sum of Rs.40,000/- with Trial Court within a period of one month from today.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Leave granted.

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. 3 accused no. 9, this appeal stands abated as against him.

3. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 were convicted by a Court of Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 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 (PW-2) and to the other injured Arjun Dada Hon (PW-8). The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in appeal. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 preferred a revision application before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 19th 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 ‘Cr.P.C.’).

4. According to the prosecution case, on 26th March 1992 at about 6.30 p.m. 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 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 (PW-8) 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 PW-8 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 7-7.30 p.m. the appellant and PW-8 were sitting on a platform in front of their house. At that time, PW-5 Karna and his son also came there. At about 8-8.30 p.m. the respondent nos. 1 to 4 arrived there and started abusing the appellant and PW-8. 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 app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document