SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 114

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Abdul Jabbar - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1982 of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 8845 of 2023]
Decided On : 05-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, Adv. Mr. Karan Singh Dalal, Adv. Mr. Raunaq Dalal, Adv. Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raj Singh Rana, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Ms. Nilakashi Choudhury, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Grievous hurt – Sentence can be reduced to period already undergone keeping in view mitigating circumstances of case.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323/34 and 325/34 – Grievous hurt – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Appellant has undergone almost 1/3rd of his sentence – Taking into consideration totality of circumstances, coupled with fact that underlying incident occurred in 2010, appeal allowed in part and impugned Order modified to the extent that Appellants’ sentence reduced to period already undergone i.e., one month and three days.(Paras 5 and 6)

Facts of the case:

Appellant was prosecuted along with 3 other persons for offences punishable under Section 452, Section 323 and Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, vide an order dated 22.04.2013, Appellant came to be convicted by Trial Court in relation to offences punishable under (i) Section 323 read with Section 34; and (ii) Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Findings of Court:

Taking into consideration totality of circumstances, coupled with fact that underlying incident occurred in 2010, appeal is allowed in part and Impugned Order is modified to the extent that Appellants’ sentence is reduced to period already undergone i.e., 1 month and 3 days.

Result : Application disposed of.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (the “High Court”) in Criminal Revision Petition bearing number CRR No. 3005 of 2013 is assailed before us.

3. The Appellant was prosecuted along with 3 (three) other persons for offences punishable under Section 452, Section 323 and Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (the “IPC”). Thereafter, vide an order dated 22.04.2013, the Appellant came to be convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, Haryana (the “Trial Court”) in relation to offences punishable under (i) Section 323 read with Section 34; and (ii) Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, the Trial Court sentenced the Appellant as under:

Offence(s)

Period of Sentence

Fine Imposed

323/34 IPC

03 Months

-

325/34 IPC

01 Year INR

500

    (the “Trial Court Order”).

4. The Trial Court Order was assailed before the Additional Session Judge, Nuh unsuccessfully, and thereafter challenged before the High Court. Vide an order dated 01.05.2023, the High Court partly allowed the Criminal Revision Petition i.e., upheld the conviction recorded by the Trial Court, however, on account of substantial delay i.e., extending to a period of almost 13 (thirteen) years in the underlying trial, modified the sentence imposed by Trial Court on the Appellant, as under:

Offence(s)

Period of Sentence

Fine Imposed

323/34 IPC

03 Months

-

325/34 IPC

03 Months

INR 5000

    (the “Impugned Order”).

5. Mr. Deepkaran Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the Appellant has undergone almost 1/3rd of his sentence i.e., a period extending to 1 (one) month; and 3 (three) days. Furthermore, he has submitted that the underlying offence pertains to 2010 and that the Appellant was made to suffer the agony of a protracted trial spanning over 13 (thirteen) years. Accordingly, it was urged before us that the sentence awarded to the Appellant be reduced to the period already undergone.

6. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, coupled with the fact that underlying incident occurred in 2010, the appeal is allowed in part and the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that the Appellants’ sentence is reduced to the period already undergone i.e., 1 (one) month; and 3 (three) days.

7. In view of the aforesaid, I.A. No. 126067 of 2023 i.e., an application seeking declaration of the Appellant as a juvenile at the time of the underlying offence, does not require any consideration by this Court.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top