Holding

The conviction stands, probation is not granted, the sentence already served is deemed sufficient, and an additional compensation of Rs 10,000 is ordered.

Summary

The appellant Manjappa was convicted for voluntarily causing grievous hurt (IPC s.325) and simple hurt (IPC s.323) in 1997, receiving a cumulative sentence that was reduced by lower courts to one and a half months. He appealed to the Supreme Court seeking probation under CrPC s.360/361, arguing that the offence was his first and that the sentence was excessive. The Court held that because the injury was intentional, the provisions for probation did not apply, and the precedent in Om Prakash v. State of Haryana was inapplicable. However, noting the ten‑year lapse since the incident and that the appellant had already served fifteen days and was on bail, the Court deemed the time already served sufficient and ordered no further imprisonment. It also directed the appellant to pay an additional compensation of Rs 10,000 to the victim, over and above the fines and earlier compensation.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is eligible for probation under CrPC sections 360 and 361 in a case of intentional grievous injury.
Whether the sentence can be further reduced beyond the High Court's reduction in view of the elapsed time and time already served.
Whether additional compensation can be ordered beyond that awarded by lower courts.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 357(1)(b), s. 360, s. 361
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 323, s. 325, s. 504

Subjects

probationCrPC 360CrPC 361grievous injurycompensationsentence reductionconvictionIPC 325Supreme Courtcriminal appeal

Judgment

~

-,... MANJAPPA A
\I,

STATEOFKARNATAKA

MAY 18, 2007

[C.K. THAKKER AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B

t'. Prosecution for causing grievous injury-Concurrent finding and
conviction by courts below-Initial sentence of I year imprisonment reduced
to 1112 months-Order for compensation to the injured-Accused undergone
imprisonment of I 5 days-In appeal to Supreme Court plea for grant of
c
probation to the accused-Held: Conviction is justified-Probation cannot
be granted because the injuries were caused intentionally-However, in view
of long lapse of time, sentence of imprisonment reduced to already
undergone-Additional compensation of Rs. I 0, 0001- granted-Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973-ss. 360, 361 and 357 (1) (b). D
, ,;~ / Charges were framed against the appellant-accused u/ss 323, 325 and
504 IPC. Trial Court acquitting him u/s 504 and convicting him u/ss 323
and 325, sentenced him to imprisonment of 3 months and fine of Rs.500/- for
the offence u/s 323 and imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for
the offence u/s 325. It ordered compensation ofRs.2000/- to the victim out of E
the fine amount.

-< Appellate court acquitting the accused u/s 323 and convicting him u/s
325, sentenced him to imprisonment of 6 months and imposed additional
compensation ofRs.3000/- to the victim.
F
High Court, in Revision confirmed the conviction u/s 325, but reduced
the imprisonment to 11/2 months. It imposed additional fine of Rs.1000/-.
Hence the present appeal.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1. High Court has reduced substantive sentence to a month and
a half. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has undergone and has
remained in custody for about fifteen days. Moreover, as on today, he is on
--'-I
bail. Hence, even though the court is of the view that in the facts and
275 H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A circumstances of the case, provisions of Section 360 read with Section 361
Cr.P.C. are not attracted and cannot claim benefit of the law laid down by this
court, it would not be appropriate now to direct the appellant to surrender and
to suffer the remaining sentence for about a month. The incident is of 1997
and about 10 years have passed. (Para 14) [279-E, F)

B Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2001) 10 SCC 477,
distinguished.

2. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, ends of justice would
be met, if it is ordered that the substantive sentence which the appellant has
C already undergone is held sufficient It would be appropriate if over and above
the amount which the appellant herein has paid towards fine and also towards
compensation to the injured victim, the appellant is ordered to pay an additional
amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation. [Para 15)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 766 of
2007.
D ~
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2006 of the High Court
1\,
ofKamataka at Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1188 of2003.

V.N. Raghupathy, Ranjit Thomas, J.P. Tripathi and Ranjay Kumar Ranjit
for the Appellant.
E
Sanjay R. Hedge for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. l. Leave granted.
F
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by the v
High Court of Karantaka at Bangalore on July 20, 2006 in Criminal Revision
Petition No. 1188 of2003.

3. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on or about July
G 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 tit
H filthy language thereby giving him provocation knowing full well that such
.
--,...-
MANJAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [THAKKER, J.]

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
277
A
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.
B
4. The prosecution in support of the case, examined eight witnesses
including injured complainant Manju Ramayya Shetty. The trial Court, after
...;
I~ 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
c
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 D
Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section
f~ 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
E
thousand only) under Section 357(l)(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 F
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 G
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 fme and compensation passed by the trial Court was confirmed.
H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A 6. The appellant challenged even that order passed by the Appellate
Court by filing Revision Petition in the High Court. The High Court confinned
the order of convictiou. The High Court also partly allowed the Revision by
reducing sentence and ordering the appellant to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for I - months and to pay fine of Rs. l 000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in
addition to what was ordered by the Courts below. The appellant has
B approached this Court against the said order passed by the High Court.

7. On November 23, 2006, the matter was placed before a Chamber Judge
since exemption from surrendering was sought. The prayer was accepted by
the learned Chamber Judge in view of the fact that the sentence imposed was
C 1112 months' Simple Imprisonment and it was averred that the accused was in
custody for fifteen days. Thereafter notice was issued and the appellant was
ordered to be released on bail.

8.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

D 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though all the
c.ourts had recorded a concurrent finding that the appellant has committed an
offence punishable under Section 325, IPC and had caused grievous injury
to the complainant, they failed to consider the provisions of Section 360 of
the Code which provides for grant of probation to an offender in certain
cases. The said section enables the Court to release a person who has been
E convicted of certain offences by releasing him on probation of good conduct
and behaviour. Section 361 requires the Court to record special reasons where
it does not grant benefit of Section 360 of the Code.

10. The said Section reads thus;

F 361. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases-Where in any
case the Court could have dealt with,-

(a) an accused person under Section 360 or under the provisions of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or
(b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60of1960), or
G any other law for the time being in force for the treatment,
training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders,

but has ilot done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons
for not having done so. ~-

H 11. The counsel referred to a decision of this Court in Om Prakash &
.. '
--;...-
MANJAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (THAKKER, J.] 279
Ors. v. State ofHaryana, [200 l) 10 SCC 4 77 and submitted that all the orders
deserve to be quashed and set aside by granting benefit of probation to the
appellant who, though more than 21 years of age, the offence in question was
his first offence.
A

12. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the
order of the courts below. He submitted that all the three courts have B
concurrently found that the appellant had caused serious injury to the
complainant and had ordered conviction and imposed sentence, which calls
-1 for no interference. He also submitted that the complainant had suffered
"'"" seven injuries and had lost two teeth. It was submitted that when the High
Court reduced sentence from six months to l 112 months, no further reduction
in the sentence may be made by this Court in exercise of discretionary power
c
under Article 136 of the Constitution.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case is covered
by Om Prakash is not well-founded. In Om Prakash, the case of the prosecution D
was that the entire incident was an outcome of an accident wherein the wife
of the complainant was hit by a tractor driven by one of the accused. It was,
/~
therefore, clear that in Om Prakash, one of the important elements of a crime
'mens rea' was absent. In the case on hand, the appellant-accused caused
grievous injury to the complainant intentionally and hence Om Prakash has
no application. E

14. At the same time, however, the fact remains that the High Court has
reduced substantive sentence to a month and a half. It is also not in dispute
that the appellant has undergone and has remained in custody for about
fifteen days. Moreover, as on today, he is on bail. Hence, even though we
are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions
F
~ of Section 360 read with Section 361 of the Code are not attracted and Om
Prakash does not help the appellant, it would not be appropriate now to
direct the appellant to surrender and to suffer the remaining sentence for
about a month. The incident is of 1997 and about 10 years have passed.
G
15. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, ends
of justice would be met, if we order that the substantive sentence which the
appellant has already undergone is held sufficient. We are also of the view
-~
that it would be appropriate if over and above the amount which the appellant
herein has paid towards fine and also towards compensation to the injured
H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A victim, the appellant is ordered to. pay an additional amount of Rs. l 0,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only), to the complainant by way of compensation. ~

16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed by holding
that the sentence already undergone by the appellant is held sufficient and
adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is, however, ordered
B that the appellant will pay an additional amount of Rs. I 0,000/- (Rupees ten
\
thousand only) to the injured complainant within a period of one month from
today over and above the amount. of fine and compensation ordered to be
paid by the courts below. \-

17. Ordered accordingly.
c
K.KT. Appeal Partly allowed;