Subhash Chander Bansal vs Gian Chand

Subhash Chander Bansal ... Appellant

Versus

Gian Chand and Ors. ... Respondents

JUDGMENT

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

revision filed by the appellant herein. ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2018.01.25 16:22:27 IST Reason: 1

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 (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).

4. The Trial Court, by order dated 14.11.1998

acquitted all the 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

2 the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereas the

complainant filed a Criminal Revision No. 174 of

1999 against the order 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 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 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 325/34 IPC but having regard to long lapse of time since the

3 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 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 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 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.

4

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, 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 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 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.

5

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 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.

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

6 quantum of fine awarded in 1988 or so appears 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.

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 that of the High

Court, which does not call for any interference in

this appeal.

16. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly

dismissed.

………………………………..J (R.K. Agrawal)

………………………………J. (Abhay Manohar Sapre)

New Delhi, January 25, 2018

7