Supreme Court of India
SUBHASH CHANDER BANSALversusGIAN CHAND AND ORS
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 59
- Decided
- 25 January 2018
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R K AGRAWAL
Holding
The High Court's conviction of the four accused under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and its award of sentence credit for time already served together with a Rs.50,000 fine is upheld as a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
Summary
In 1988 the accused used a hockey stick to inflict injuries on Om Prakash and Ravinder Kumar. The trial court acquitted all five accused, but the High Court convicted four of them under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, crediting the period they had already spent in custody and imposing a collective fine of Rs.50,000. One accused was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the conviction under Section 325 instead of Section 307 and the adequacy of the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence, that the conduct amounted to grievous hurt under Section 325, and that credit for time already served together with the fine was a proper exercise of discretion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts constitute an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC rather than under Section 307 IPC.
- Whether the High Court could credit the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused as full sentence for the offence under Section 325 r/w Section 34.
- Whether the imposition of a Rs.50,000 fine to be shared equally among the convicted accused is within the discretion of the trial and appellate courts.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 307, s. 325, s. 34
Subjects
Criminal lawIndian Penal CodeGrievous hurtSection 325 IPCSection 34 IPCSentencingCredit for time servedFineBenefit of doubtAppellate jurisdiction
Judgment
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 267 267
SUBHASH CHANDER BANSAL A
v.
GIAN CHAND AND ORS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1676 of 2009)
JANUARY 25, 2018 B
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.325/34 – Prosecution case was that
respondents-accused caused injuries to two persons with hockey –
Trial court acquitted all the five accused persons – High Court
C
allowed the State’s appeal in part and convicted the four accused
persons under s.325 r/w s.34, imposing the sentence that was already
undergone by them and fine of Rs.50,000 to be paid equally by the
four convicted accused persons – Acquittal of one accused was
upheld by giving him benefit of doubt – Held: The finding of the
High Court regarding conviction of respondents under s.325 was D
based on proper appreciation of entire prosecution evidence – As
regards the sentence, High Court was of the opinion that the
respondents have already undergone some reasonable length of
jail sentence as under-trials and the same was sufficient, more so
since in addition, a fine of Rs.50,000/- was also awarded – No
E
reason to take a different view from that of the High Court – The
injured were duly compensated with the fine of Rs.50,000/- –
Interference with impugned order not called for.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the first place, the High Court convicted four F
accused persons under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC and
not under Section 307 IPC. This finding of the High Court is
based on proper appreciation of entire prosecution evidence and
there is no find any reason to disturb it for convicting the
respondents under Section 325 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.
[Paras 10, 11][270-C, D] G
2. So far as the awarding of sentence for an offence
punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is
concerned, the High Court was of the opinion that the respondents
H
267
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.
A have already undergone some reasonable length of jail sentence
as under-trials and the same appears to be sufficient. The incident
in question occurred as far back as in 1988. 30 years have elapsed.
Secondly, in the meantime, one injured also expired. Thirdly, the
injured were duly compensated with the amount of fine of
Rs.50,000/-. The quantum of fine awarded in 1988 or so appears
B
to be just and reasonable. Moreover, it is the sole discretion of
the Trial Court and, in this case, the High Court to decide the
quantum of fine amount. There is no reason to take a different
view from that of the High Court, which does not call for any
interference in this appeal. [Paras 12-15][270-E-H; 271-A]
C CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1676 of 2009.
From the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 04.05.2007
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl.
Revision No.174 of 1999.
D
Ms. Shalu Sharma, Adv. for the Appellant.
Benant Noor Singh Marok, Satish Goel, Mushtaq Ahmad, Dr.
Kailash Chand, Kuldip Singh, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advs. for the
Respondents.
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the
Complainant against the final judgment and order dated 04.05.2007 passed
by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Revision No. 174 of 1999 by which the High Court dismissed the criminal
F revision filed by the appellant herein.
2. In order to dispose of the appeal, few relevant facts need
mention hereinbelow.
3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (five accused persons) were prosecuted
under Sections 307/325/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code,1908
G (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) for causing injuries to two persons
namely, Om Prakash and Ravinder Kumar, with Hockey at around 7.15
p.m. on 29.07.1988. The prosecution was initiated against the respondents
on the basis of FIR No. 128 dated 03.08.1988 lodged by the appellant
herein, who is the son of Om Prakash (since dead).
H
SUBHASH CHANDER BANSAL v. GIAN CHAND 269
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
4. The Trial Court, by order dated 14.11.1998 acquitted all the A
five accused persons (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein).
5. The State, being aggrieved by the order of acquitting the
respondents, filed criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No.494-DB of
1999 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereas the
complainant filed a Criminal Revision No. 174 of 1999 against the order B
of the acquittal.
6. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the State’s
appeal in part and convicted the four accused persons namely, Gian
Chand, Krishan Kumar, Lachhman Dass and Bhagwan Dass (respondent
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5) under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and C
upheld the acquittal of one accused person, namely, Suresh Kumar -
respondent No. 4 by giving him benefit of doubt. The operative part of
judgment of the High Court reads as under:
“In the above circumstances, acquittal of the respondents
cannot be justified. However, having regard to the D
submission made on behalf of Suresh Kumar, we consider
it safe to give him benefit of doubt and acquit him but we do
not find any valid ground to uphold acquittal of other accused.
Accordingly we convict accused Gian Chand, Krishan
Kumar, Lachhman Dass and Bhagwan Dass under sections E
325/34 IPC but having regard to long lapse of time since
the date of occurrence, we award sentence for the period
of imprisonment already undergone by them, apart from
awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be shared equally
by PW3 Subhash Chander and PW4 Virender Kumar. It has F
been noticed that Om Parkash, injured has already died.
The four convicted accused will pay Rs.12,500/- each.
…………….”
7. The complainant, being aggrieved by the judgment of the High
Court, has filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court. The G
State has not filed any appeal.
8. Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration in
this appeal is whether the High Court having convicted the four accused
persons under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC was justified in
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.
A imposing the sentence that was already undergone by them and by
imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/- to be paid equally by the four convicted
accused persons.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal. In our opinion,
B the High Court was right and hence the impugned judgment does not
call for any interference.
10. In the first place, the High Court convicted four accused persons
under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC and not under Section 307
IPC. In other words, in the opinion of the High Court, no case was made
C out under Section 307 IPC, but it was essentially a case of a “grievous
hurt” falling under Section 325 IPC.
11. This finding of the High Court, in our opinion, is based on
proper appreciation of entire prosecution evidence and we do not find
any reason to disturb it for convicting the respondents under Section 325
D IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.
12. So far as the awarding of sentence for an offence punishable
under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned, the High
Court was of the opinion that the respondents have already undergone
some reasonable length of jail sentence as under-trials and the same, in
E our opinion, appears to be sufficient. It is more so because, in addition,
a fine of Rs.50,000/- was also awarded. This would meet the ends of
justice.
13. Having examined this issue, we find no reason to interfere on
this issue too for the following reasons.
F
14. Firstly, the incident in question occurred as far back as in
1988, whereas we are now in 2018. In between this period, 30 years
have elapsed. Secondly, in the meantime, one injured also expired. Thirdly,
the injured were duly compensated with the amount of fine of Rs.50,000/
-. The quantum of fine awarded in 1988 or so appears to be just and
G
reasonable. Moreover, it is the sole discretion of the Trial Court and, in
this case, the High Court to decide the quantum of fine amount.
15. Taking into account all these facts, which have emerged from
the facts of the case, we find no reason to take a different view from
H
SUBHASH CHANDER BANSAL v. GIAN CHAND 271
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
that of the High Court, which does not call for any interference in this A
appeal.
16. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed. B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Criminal law"Sign in to search