Altab Gharami @ Atlab Sk vs The State Of West Bengal
- SCC(2018) 13 SCC 512
- Neutral2017 INSC 680
- AIRAIR 2017 SC 3570
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where two or more eyewitnesses give consistent, cogent and reliable evidence that is corroborated by medical evidence showing grievous injuries caused by weapons used during the incident, their ocular testimony is sufficient to establish the commission of offences under Sections 326 and 456 read with Section 34 of the IPC, even without additional corroborating circumstantial evidence. Where the appellants committed lurking house trespass during night and inflicted injuries including a crack to the table of the skull and impairment of a finger using dangerous weapons, they have committed grievous hurt as contemplated under Section 320 of the IPC and are rightly convicted under Section 326 of the IPC read with Section 34. In cases involving conviction for causing grievous hurt with the receipt of hospitalization and ongoing medical treatment, the court may reduce the quantum of imprisonment imposed by the lower appellate court while increasing the fine to ensure adequate compensation to the victim, with the entire fine, if deposited, being directed to be paid to the injured person.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Non-Reportable) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1242/2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)No.9648/2014)
Altab Gharami @ Atlab SK & Anr. …Appellants Vs. The State of West Bengal …Respondent WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1243/2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1052/2015)
JUDGMENT
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR,J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is against the Judgment dated
22.08.2014, passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A No. 310
of 2009, by the convicted accused.
2. The appellants faced trial for certain offences including the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 456, 427 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C”). The Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Krishnagar, Nadia
convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 307, 456 &
427 read with 34 of IPC, accordingly sentenced them to undergo
R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for 1 year, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Signature Not Verified
Rs.2,000/- and simple imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Digitally signed by HEMALATHA MOHAN Date: 2017.07.27 17:09:02 IST Reason:
Rs.1,000/- respectively that shall run concurrently. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court having found on facts that the appellants neither caused mischief within the meaning
of section 425, I.P.C. nor had any intention or knowledge to commit
murder in terms of Section 307, IPC thus convicted them for the
offences under Section 326 read with Section 34 and under Section
456 r/w Section 34, IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as unfolded in the course of
trial is that at about 9:00 P.M. on 10.06.2005 the appellants along
with certain others threw brick bats on the tile-shaded house of the
informant, Abdul Gaffar Dewan (PW–1) herein. As a result, some of
the tiles were damaged. At that time Dalil Dewan (PW–2), father of
the informant, intervened and raised objection against illegal acts of
the accused. As a result, the appellants being armed with sharp
cutting weapons entered into the house of informant and attacked
P.W-2, father of the informant, resulting in certain contusions and
bleeding injuries. The accused also assaulted the mother, elder
brother & sister-in-law of the informant.
4. PWs – 1, 2 & 3 are the eye witnesses, out of them PW-2 is the
injured eye witness. The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate
Court on facts have concurrently found that the evidence of these
three eye witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable; their evidence
supports the case of the prosecution; that the ocular testimony of
PWs – 1, 2 & 3 is fully fortified by the evidence of the doctor (PW–4), who found that the victim has suffered grievous injury on head,
inside ear as well as on the right-hand wrist and index finger. The
victim (PW–2) was admitted to Saktinagar Hospital for 10 days and
thereafter treated at N.R.S hospital.
5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we find
that the High Court is justified in upholding the conviction against
the appellants both for the offences under Sections 326 and 456 of
IPC, inasmuch as the accused committed lurking house trespass
during night and assaulted the victim with brick bats and sharp
cutting weapons which have resulted in four sets of injuries,
(including a grievous injury) which are as under :-
(i) Left occipital scalp cut 2”x1” with crack out table of skull.
(ii) Right Pinna cut injury extended from the helix upper part of
antitragus.
(iii) 2” x 1” cut injury on the dorsal of right hand extended cut
and exposing mp joint of index finger.
(iv) Cut injury of the hypothener over extending to the medial
wrist 4” x 1” vessel and muscle cut injury was repaired.
To reiterate, the appellants who have involved in substantial act
of inflicting blow on the head causing crack table of skull and
impairment of the right index finger using dangerous weapons, are
rightly held by the High Court that they have committed the grievous
injury as contemplated under Section 320 of IPC.
6. However, in cogitation and scrutiny of the facts and having regard
to the material on record in respect of aggravating and mitigating
factors, particularly keeping in mind the fact that PW 2, who
suffered grievous injury, had to take treatment as in-patient for ten
days in Saktinagar Hospital and thereafter treated at N.R.S
hospital, we are of the opinion that the victim must be adequately
compensated while reducing the quantum of sentence of
imprisonment to certain extent.
7. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the High Court
against the appellants for the offences under Sections 456 and 326
of IPC both read with Section 34 of the IPC, is confirmed. The
appellants are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two
years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each in respect of offence
under Section 326 of the IPC, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for eight months. They are also sentenced to simple
imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the
offence under Section 456 of the IPC, in default thereof, to undergo
simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences shall run
concurrently.
Entire fine, if deposited, shall be paid to the injured Dalil Dewan
(PW–2) as compensation.
8. The appellants are entitled to the benefit of set off as contained in
Section 428 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the period of detention already undergone by them.
9. With the aforesaid modifications in sentence of imprisonment and
fine, the appeals are disposed of.
…………………………………..J. (Dipak Misra)
……………………………………J. (A. M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………………….J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar) New Delhi, Dated: July 27, 2017 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.10 SECTION II-B For pronouncement
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).1242/2017
ALTAB GHARAMI @ ATLAB SK & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)
(HEARD BY HON. DIPAK MISRA, HON. A.M. KHANWILKAR AND HON. MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.)
WITH Crl.A. No. 1243/2017 (II-B)
Date : 27-07-2017 These matters were called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Ms. Runa Bhuyan Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Dipak Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and
His Lordship.
Appeals are disposed of in terms of signed Reportable
Judgment.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(B.PARVATHI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free