HARIBHAU versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 4 September 2018

622

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 10 S.C.R.

A

HARIBHAU

v.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

(Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of 2018)

B

SEPTEMBER 04, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND

UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Sentence/Sentencing:

C

CConviction u/ss. 353, 504 and 294 r/w s. 34 IPC by courtsbelow – Sentence of 3 months R1 and fine of Rs. 800/- imposed –On appeal, plea of accused to reduce the sentence – Held: In viewof the facts that imprisonment of one month was already undergone,that incident occurred on spur of moments, that accused had nocriminal antecedent, that the incident was quite old and that theDaccused was not required in any other criminal case, sentence isreduced to the period already undergone – Instead fine amount isenhanced to Rs. 15000/- from Rs. 800/- – Penal Code, 1860 –ss. 353/34, 504/34 and 294/34.

Partly allowing the appeal, the CourtE

HELD: 1. Taking into account that the appellant has alreadyundergone one month’s jail sentence out of three months awardedto him; the fact that the incident in question is quite old and seemsto have occurred at the spur of the moment, the appellant has nocriminal antecedent in his past life and that he is not required inFany other criminal case except the one in question which theappellant fairly did not deny having committed and rightly didnot challenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and properto alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from threemonths to the extent of period of one month which was alreadyGundergone by him and instead enhance the total fine amountawarded under different Sections from Rs.800/- to Rs.15,000/-.[Para 14] [625-C-E]

2. Failure to deposit the fine amount within one month wouldresult in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below H

and the appellant will have to then undergo the remaining jailsentence awarded by the Courts below. [Para 17] [625-G-H]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1118 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal AppealNo. 258 of 2006.

Shakul R. Ghatole, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advs. for theAppellant.

Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated20.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, NagpurBench in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2006 whereby the High Court whileallowing the appeal with respect to other accused- Babarao ShriramChaudhary dismissed the appeal with respect to the appellant herein andconfirmed his conviction and sentence awarded to him by order dated10.04.2006 passed by the 3[rd] Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washimin Atrocities Case No.28 of 2005 by which the appellant and Babaraohad been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 294and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafterreferred to as “IPC”) and had directed them to suffer rigorousimprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 353/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs.200/-under Section 504/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one monthwith fine of Rs.100/- under Section 294/34 IPC. All the sentences weredirected to run concurrently.

3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that Bala Saheb Ingole(PW-1) was serving as a teacher in Zilla Parishad Primary School atJanuna, Tahsil Karanja District Washim (MH). On 05.04.2005, theappellant (Haribhau) and Babarao, who were Sarpanch and Member ofthe Gram Panchayat, Januna respectively visited the School and askedBala Saheb as to why he came late in the School. Bala Saheb offeredhis explanation.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

4. The explanation offered by Bala Saheb did not satisfy theappellant and Babarao, therefore, they asked Bala Saheb for book ofcircle-in-charge maintained by the School. Since Bala Saheb did notgive the book, the appellant (Haribhau) caught hold of his shirt’s collarand while using abusive language gave kicks and blows to him. Theyalso gave threat to Bala Saheb for causing injuries endangering his life.

B

5. It is this incident which gave rise to lodging of FIR which wasfollowed by the prosecution of the appellant (Haribhau) and Babaraofor commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 294read with Section 34 of IPC and in addition under Section 3(1)(x) of theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)CAct, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”).

6. By order dated 10.04.2006, the Additional Sessions Judge,Washim convicted the appellant and Babarao for the offences punishableunder Sections 353, 504 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC and awardedthe sentences mentioned above. The appellant and Babarao were,Dhowever, acquitted for commission of the offence punishable under Section3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act.

7. The appellant and Babarao felt aggrieved by the order ofconviction and sentence and filed appeal before the High Court ofBombay, Nagpur Bench. By impugned order, the High Court allowedEthe appeal with respect to Babarao and acquitted him of all the chargesleveled against him.

8. So far as the appellant (Haribhau) is concerned, his appeal wasdismissed. In other words, the appellant’s conviction and the sentenceawarded by the Additional Sessions Judge was upheld giving rise toFfiling of this appeal by way of special leave by Haribhau in this Court.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant was essentiallyone. According to him, out of total jail sentence awarded to the appellant,he has already undergone one month actual jail sentence and since thenGhe is on bail.

11. It was his submission that having regard to the nature of theoffence committed by the appellant, his age (60 years), his spotless careerthroughout without any criminal antecedents and lastly, the fact that he H

has already undergone one month jail sentence in relation to the offencecommitted 13 years back, hence this Court while upholding the appellant’sconviction may consider proper to alter the sentence awarded to theappellant and reduce it to the extent the period already undergone in jailby him and instead impose more fine on him to meet the ends of justice.

12. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent-State urged forupholding of the impugned order.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find force in the submission of the learnedcounsel for the appellant.

14. In our considered opinion, firstly, taking into account that theappellant has already undergone one month’s jail sentence out of threemonths awarded to him, secondly, the fact that the incident in question isquite old and seems to have occurred at the spur of the moment, thirdly,the appellant has no criminal antecedent in his past life and lastly, he isnot required in any other criminal case except the one in question whichthe appellant fairly did not deny having committed and rightly did notchallenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and proper to alter thejail sentence awarded to the appellant from three months to the extentof period of one month which was already undergone by him and insteadenhance the total fine amount awarded under different Sections fromRs.800/- to Rs.15,000/-.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andis accordingly allowed in part. The jail sentence awarded to the appellantby the Courts below is altered and is accordingly reduced to the extentof period of one month which already undergone by him.

16. In other words, the appellant is now not required to serve anymore jail sentence than what he has already undergone and at the sametime the amount of the total fine awarded by the Courts below is enhancedfrom Rs.800/- to Rs.15,000/- for being paid to the complainant- BalaSaheb Ingole.

17. Failure to deposit the fine amount within one month wouldresult in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and theappellant will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence awardedby the Courts below.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A18. Let the amount of fine be deposited by the appellant in TrialCourt within one month from the date of this order for being paid to theComplainant.

B

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal partly allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H