VISHWAMBHAR NARAYAN JADHAVversusMALLAPPA SANGRAMAPPA MALLIPATIL & ANR.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1378
- Decided
- 2 December 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The High Court's reduction of the sentence under Section 326 IPC was improper, and the trial court's conviction and sentence are restored.
Summary
The appellant Vishwambhar Narayan Jadhav was attacked with acid on a bus, sustaining serious burns. He was convicted by the trial court under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. On revision, the Bombay High Court reduced the term to the period already served (35 days) and increased the fine to Rs.20,000, a decision the Supreme Court found untenable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no authority to diminish the punishment for such a heinous offence and set aside its order, restoring the trial court's judgment and directing the respondent to serve the remaining sentence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the respondent was ordered to be taken into custody.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bombay High Court was justified in reducing the sentence awarded under Section 326 IPC on revision.
- Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to alter the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and the first appellate court.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 326
Subjects
Judgment
VISHWAMBHAR NARAYAN JADHAV v. MALLAPPA 1071
SANGRAMAPPA MALLIPATIL & ANR.
~. ORDER A
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. I
s·
3. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned
-;. i judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27th April, 2007 in
Criminal Revision Application No.183 of 2007.
4. The facts of the prosecution case are mentioned in the
C!
FIR dated 25th January, 2002, copy of which has been annexed
as Annexure P-3 to this appeal. In the FIR, it has been
mentioned that while the appellant was on a bus, respondent
No.1 .entered the bus and came to the seat of the appellant and
said that you always harassed my uncle and he started abusing
the appellant. Respondent No.1 then took a bottle of acid from D
his pocket and poured the acid on the head of the appellant
~-
with the result that the face, neck, eyes, chest etc. of the
• appellant were seriously burnt. Appellant was then taken to the
hospital where he was given medical treatment. We have seen
the photographs showing serious bum injuries on the head, face E
and chest of the appellant.
5. The trial Court, by its judgment dated 06th October,
2004, found respondent No.1 guilty under Section 326, IPC and
sentenced him to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment with F
-~ a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo further three months'
simple imprisonment.
6. Against the aforesaid judgment, respondent No.1 filed
an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, who by his
judgment dated 13th April, 2007 confirmed the conviction and G
... ) sentence awarded by the trial Court .
7. Thereafter, it appears that respondent No.1 filed a
Criminal Revision Applrcation No.183/2007 before the Bombay I
High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but the ~-
fine was increased to Rs. 20,000/-.
8. We are surprised that the High Court has, in such a
heinous crime, chosen to reduce the punishment ·to the
sentence already undergone which we are informed was only
'B
35 days. In our opinion, there was no occasion for the High ·
Court to interfere with the· judgment of the trial Court. and the
r- -#"
first appellate court. Respondent No.1 appears to be a person
who has criminal inclinations and no leniency is called for for
such. persons, otherwise people will not be able to go around
c in life in peace.
Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court
and restore the judgment of the trial court an~ first (lppellate_
court. Respondent No.1 be taken into custody forthwith to serve
D out his remaining part of sentence.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
~
....
...... .
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.