Sahebrao Arjun Hon vs Raosaheb

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1499 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2353 of 2017)

Sahebrao Arjun Hon … APPELLANT(S)

v.

Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon & Ors. ... RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the complainant who is one of the victims

of the offence subject matter of this appeal. The respondent nos.1

to 4 are the accused nos.7 to 10. On account of death of the

respondent no.3­accused no.9, this appeal stands abated as

against him.

3. The respondent nos.1 to 4 were convicted by a Court of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI Date: 2022.09.06 18:07:20 IST Reason:

Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections

1 326, 324 and 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). For the offence punishable under Section

326 read with Section 34 of IPC, the learned Trial Judge

sentenced the respondent nos.1 to 4 to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of

Rs.3,000/­ each. In default of payment of fine, they were

sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months each. For

the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of

IPC, the said respondents were sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/­ each. In default of payment of fine, they were

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

For the offence punishable under Section 447 read with Section

34 of IPC, they were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/­ each and

in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each. All

the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Out

of the fine amount paid by them, the learned Trial Judge directed

that compensation of Rs.1,000/­ shall be paid to the appellant

(PW­2) and to the other injured Arjun Dada Hon (PW­8). The

learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of

the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in appeal. The respondent nos.1 to 4

2 preferred a revision application before the High Court. By the

impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2016, while confirming

the conviction, the substantive sentence imposed on them of

rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable

under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC was brought down

to rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence

punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34, the

respondent nos.1 to 4 were let off on the sentence already

undergone by them. However, the respondent nos. 1,2 and 4

were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/­ each to the two

victims as compensation in terms of Section 357­A of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’).

4. According to the prosecution case, on 26 th March 1992 at

about 6.30 pm, when the appellant came near the pan shop of

the accused no.11, he was called by the said accused. After

getting his tractor repaired, the appellant came to the shop of the

accused no.11. It is alleged that the accused no.11 objected to

the appellant being in company of one Vithobanana. Accused

no.11 described the said Vithobanana as a beggar. The appellant

responded by telling the accused no.11 that he had no business

to question him as the said Vithobanana was his relative. At that

3 time, the respondent no.1 – accused no. 7 arrived at the spot and

there was exchange of words between the appellant and the

respondent no.1. At that time, Arjun Dada Hon (PW­8) who is

also a victim of offence came there and tried to pacify the

respondent no.1. It is alleged that at that time, the accused

no.11 caught hold of collar of PW­8 and abused him. When the

appellant tried to intervene, the accused no.11 slapped him. The

incident ended there as the persons concerned dispersed from

the spot.

5. On the same day, at about 7­7.30 pm, the appellant and

PW­8 were sitting on a platform in front of their house. At that

time, PW­5 Karna and his son also came there. At about 8­8.30

pm, the respondent nos.1 to 4 arrived there and started abusing

the appellant and PW­8. At that time, the respondent no.1 was

carrying a stick in his hand. He gave a blow of the stick on the

appellant’s head. The respondent no. 2 gave a blow by using a

scythe on the neck and back of the appellant. It is the case of the

prosecution that even Arjun (PW­8) was assaulted by the said

respondents by using sticks. It is the case of the prosecution that

one Sachin (PW­9) and Madhukar (PW­4) also suffered minor

injuries.

4

6. The learned Trial Judge believed the testimony of the

appellant (PW­2) and the other injured witness Arjun (PW­8)

which was duly supported by the medical evidence as well as the

evidence regarding recovery of the weapons of assault at the

instance of the accused.

7. In support of the present appeal, Shri Shivaji M. Jadhav,

the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

notwithstanding the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the

appellant and PW­8, the Trial Court showed leniency while

imposing sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment for

the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34.

The learned counsel submitted that the appellant suffered 11

injuries including depressed fracture on left parietal region. He

suffered life threatening injuries on left parietal region and left

side of the neck. He pointed out that the prosecution examined

Dr. Vijay Gyanba Kshirsagar (PW­12) who deposed that the

condition of the appellant was serious when he was brought to

him for treatment. The learned Counsel appearing for the

appellant submitted that there was absolutely no reason for the

High Court to reduce the substantive sentence to the period of

one year.

5

8. Shri Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the

respondent nos.1,2 and 4 submitted that if this Court is inclined

to consider the submissions made by the appellant on merits, the

revision application may be remanded to the High Court. He

submitted that though submissions were made before the High

Court on merits of the conviction, effectively what is considered

by the High Court is only the submission made on behalf of the

said respondents in the alternative for substantially reducing the

sentence. He would, therefore, submit that the prayer for

enhancement made by the appellant cannot be considered. If at

all it is to be considered, the revision application may be

remanded to the High Court.

9. After the submissions were substantially heard, we had

suggested to the parties to explore possibility of an amicable

settlement. However, the learned counsel reported to the Court

that there is no possibility of any amicable settlement.

10. We have given careful consideration to the submissions

made across the bar. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court

have concurrently found that the offences punishable under

Section 326 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with

Section 34 of IPC have been duly established by the prosecution. 6 Though while deciding the revision application, the High Court

may not have elaborately recorded reasons, in paragraph 4 of the

impugned judgment, after considering the evidence on record, the

learned Judge of the High Court has expressed a general

agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the two

Courts. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the High

Court was not expected to record detailed reasons for concurring

with the reasons recorded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court.

Perusal of paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment shows that the

submission regarding reduction of sentence was made in addition

to the contentions raised on merits.

11. The High Court has chosen to take a very lenient view by

reducing the substantive sentence for the offences punishable

under Section 326 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read

with Section 34 of IPC. The substantive sentence of the offence

under Section 326 has been reduced to one year. As far as

Section 324 of IPC is concerned, the respondent nos.1,2 and 4

have been let off on the sentence already undergone.

12. As far as the sentencing is concerned, the judicial discretion

is always guided by various considerations such as seriousness

7 of the crime, the circumstances in which crime was committed

and the antecedents of the accused. The Court is required to go

by the principle of proportionality. If undue sympathy is shown

by reducing the sentence to the minimum, it may adversely affect

the faith of people in efficacy of law. It is the gravity of crime

which is the prime consideration for deciding what should be the

appropriate punishment.

13. Perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that there

is no finding recorded regarding the existence of any relevant

mitigating circumstance in favour of the respondent nos.1,2 and

4. It is always the duty of the Court to balance aggravating

circumstances and mitigating circumstances at the time of

imposing sentence. Perusal of the findings recorded by the Trial

Court shows that the appellant suffered total 11 injuries on his

person. For four injuries, stitches were required to be applied.

The evidence of Dr.Shinde (PW­11) describes the injuries in

detail. On the basis of X­ray films produced on record, Dr.Shinde

pointed out that depressed fracture on left parietal region was

seen. Dr.Kshirsagar (PW­12), under whom the appellant was

admitted as indoor patient has stated that the condition of the

8 appellant was serious when he was brought to him. In fact, the

case of the prosecution is that even a dying declaration of the

appellant was recorded. Even the other injured witness Arjun

(PW­8) suffered five injuries out of which one was on frontal

parietal area. As against this, there are no major mitigating

circumstances in favour of the respondent nos.1,2 and 4.

14. The maximum sentence for the offence punishable under

Section 326 of IPC is imprisonment for life. Even after

considering the nature of the serious injuries sustained by the

appellant, the Trial Court took a lenient view by imposing

sentence of imprisonment of only 3 years. There was no

provocation for the respondent nos.1 to 4 to attack the appellant

and the other victims. They came well prepared with the weapons

of assault in front of the house of the appellant where the

incident took place. Looking to the gravity of the offence, there

was no warrant for showing leniency. Even though a case is

made out for grant of enhancement in sentence or at least to

restore the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, it must be

remembered that the impugned judgment is of 19 th December

2016 and the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 must have undergone

9 the entire sentence of one year. The incident is of the year 1992.

Hence, we propose to enhance their sentence by six months’

simple imprisonment. Moreover, we propose to grant a

reasonable compensation to the victims in addition to the

compensation made payable by the High Court. Therefore, we

propose to direct the respondent nos. 1,2 and 4 to pay an

additional sum of Rs.40,000/­ to the present appellant and the

injured witness, Arjun Dada Hon (PW­8).

15. By modifying the impugned judgment of the High Court,

we direct that in addition to the substantive sentence imposed by

the High Court for the offence punishable under section 326 read

with section 34 of IPC, the respondent no.1,2 and 4 shall

undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The respondent

nos.1,2 and 4 shall surrender before the Trial Court within six

weeks from today to undergo simple imprisonment for six months

in addition to the sentence imposed by the High Court. The

respondent nos.1,2 and 4 shall deposit the total sum of

Rs.40,000/­ with the Trial Court within a period of one month

from today. The officer in charge of Kopargaon Police Station

10 shall ensure that the additional compensation is equally

distributed to the appellant and Arjun Dada Hon (PW­8).

16.To the above extent, the appeal is partly allowed, with no

order as to costs.

....…………………J. (SURYA KANT)

….…………………J. (ABHAY S. OKA) New Delhi;

September 6, 2022.

11