Supreme Court of India
NARESH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. on 25 April 2018
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 3 S.C.R. 940
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
A
NARESH & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2018)
B
APRIL 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 –Four accused – Prosecution case was that the accused personsattacked the victim with axe and caused injuries to him on his bodyC– The injuries were abrasion, contusion and one lacerated wound– Sessions court acquitted all the accused – However, High Courtset aside acquittal and ordered conviction – Appeal againstconviction – Held: In view of finding of facts, interference with theorder of High Court is not called for in case of accused no.1, 3Dand 4 – However, sentence awarded by High Court is reduced towhat they have already undergone for the reason that the appellantswere first offender, the injuries inflicted on the victim were not seriousin nature and victim survived leaving no disability due to causingof the injuries – The fine of Rs.7000 awarded by High Court isenhanced to Rs.75000 – In case of appellant no.2, role attributedEto him was not established beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,he is acquitted of charges leveled against him.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: So far as the involvement of appellant Nos.1, 3 andF4, in commission of offence in question, is concerned, no case forinterference is made out on findings of fact. As regards thesentence of appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4, their respective jailsentences awarded by the High Court are modified and reducedto what they have already undergone and the fine amount awardedby the High Court enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.75,000/- toGeach appellant for the following reasons. First, the incident is of1998. In other words, it is now almost 20 years have passed thatthis litigation is pending in various Courts. Second, there wereseven injuries noticed by the doctor on the body of injured butthe injuries noticed were not very serious in nature. Third, the H
victim survived leaving no disability much less permanent on hisbody due to causing of the injuries and lived for twenty yearsafter the date of alleged incident and died recently. Fourth,appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 have undergone almost one year of jailsentence including remission out of the total jail sentence awardedby the High Court. Fifth, the appellants were first offender andwere not found involved in any criminal activity in the last 20years, though remained on bail throughout. [Paras 14-21][944-F-H; 945-A-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNos. 394-395 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2017/17.07.2017 ofthe High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of2011 and Government Appeal No. 42 of 2011.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 396 of 2018.
Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Mrs. MamtaJain, Uday Ram Bokadia, Atul Agarwal, Ms. Divya Garg, Rakesh KumarKhare, Sonal Jain, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Pankaj KumarSingh, Mukesh Verma, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advs.for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Criminal Appeal Nos.394-395 of 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. These appeals are filed by the accused persons against thecommon final judgment and order dated 10.07.2017/17.07.2017 passedby the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.91of 2011 (filed by the complainant) and Government Appeal No.42 of2011 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals of the State and theComplainant and set aside the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by theAdditional Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial Nos.286 of 1999 and foundthe accused persons, Naresh, Suresh, Ashish@Sheshraj and Rajendraguilty for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307/34, A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A323/34, 324/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafterreferred to as “IPC”) and accordingly sentenced each of them as under:Accused Trial Court High Court Naresh Acquitted under Convicted under Sections 307/34, (A-1) Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC B323/34, 324/34 and 504IPC 5 years R.I. and Rs.5000/- under Section 307 IPC 6 months R.I. and Rs.500/- under Section 323/34 IPC C2 years R.I. and Rs.500/- under Section 324/34 IPC 1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/- under Section 504 IPC Suresh Acquitted u/s 307/34, Convicted under Section 307/34, D(A-2) 323/34, 324/34 and 504 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC IPC 6 months R.I. and Rs.500/- under Section 323/34 IPC 2 years R.I. and Rs.500/- under Section 324/34 IPC E1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/- under Section 504 IPC (However, on account of the advance stage of lung cancer, 2 years R.I. u/s 307 IPC)FAshish@ Acquitted u/s 307/34, Convicted under Sections 307/34, Shesh 323/34, 324/34 and 504 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC Raj (A-IPC 3) 5 years R.I. and Rs.5000/- under Section 307 IPC 6 months R.I. and Rs.500/- under GSection 323/34 IPC 2 years R.I. and Rs.500/- under Section 324/34 IPC 1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/- under Section 504 IPC H
307/34, Cunder
- under nder
under 07/34, C
- under nder
under he cer, 2 307/34, C
under
- under
nder under
2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeals, fewrelevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow.
D
3. The appellants herein are the accused. They are Naresh (A-1), Suresh (A-2), Ashish (A-3) and Rajendra (A-4).
4. These four accused faced prosecution for commission ofoffences punishable under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 ofthe IPC.
E
5. In short, the prosecution case against these four appellantswas that on 26.05.1998, they attacked one person by name “Tej Singh”with axe and caused injuries to him on his body. The injuries wereabrasion, contusion, and one lacerated wound (see page 86 of appealpaper book-Annexure- P/2 doctor’s opinion).
F
6. It is this incident which led to filing of FIR (No.83/1998) on27.05.1998 by PW-4 Jaswir Singh against four accused in PS Haridwar-Laksar. The four appellants were accordingly apprehended and put totrial. The Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, by order dated 16.03.2011,acquitted all the four appellants (accused).
G
7. The State and the Complainant felt aggrieved and filed leave tofile appeals before the High Court seeking permission to question thelegality and correctness of the order of the appellants’ acquittal. Leavewas granted. Naresh Kumar(A-1) also filed Criminal Appeal No.126 of2011 before the High Court.
H
A
8. By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appealsfiled by the Complainant and the State and set aside the order passed bythe Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar and sentenced all the accusedpersons for the offences punishable under various sections mentionedsupra.
9. However, taking into consideration the disease suffered bySuresh(A-2), i.e., advanced stage of lung cancer, he was sentenced toundergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC. TheCourt directed the State to admit him at Civil hospital, Roorkee for medicaltreatment.
B
10. The appellants (accused) felt aggrieved by the judgment ofthe High Court and filed these appeals by way of special leave in thisCourt.
C
11. The short question, which arises for consideration in theseappeals, is whether the High Court was justified in reversing the orderDof acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and convicting theappellants.
12. Heard Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain, learned senior counsel for theappellants and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for therespondents.E13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in partinsofar as Suresh-Accused No.2 (appellant No. 2 herein) is concernedand acquit him of the charges by restoring the order of the AdditionalSessions Judge.
F
F14. So far as the remaining three accused- appellants areconcerned, namely, the appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4, we modify theirrespective jail sentences awarded by the High Court mentioned aboveand reduced to what they have already undergone and enhance the fineamount awarded by the High Court, i.e., from Rs.7000/- to Rs.75,000/- to each appellant.G
15. This we are inclined to do for the following reasons.
16. First, the incident is of 1998 and we are in 2018. In otherwords, it is now almost 20 years have passed that this litigation is pendingin various Courts.
H
17. Second, there were seven injuries noticed by the doctor onthe body of injured-Tej Singh but the injuries noticed were not very seriousin nature as would be clear from the Doctor’s report mentioned above.
18. Third, Tej Singh survived leaving no disability much lesspermanent on his body due to causing of the injuries and lived for twentyyears after the date of alleged incident and died recently in last week aswas stated by learned counsel for the appellants.
19. Fourth, all the appellants(accused) have undergone almostone year of jail sentence including remission out of the total jail sentenceawarded by the High Court except appellant No.2 – Suresh(A-2), whounderwent around three months.
20. Fifth, all the appellants were first offender and were notfound involved in any criminal activity in the last 20 years, though remainedon bail throughout and lastly, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are reported to be inGovernment Service.
21. However, so far as the involvement of appellant Nos.1, 3 and4, in commission of offence in question, is concerned, we have perusedthe findings of the High Court qua each and find that no case forinterference on such findings of fact though of reversal is called for bythis Court. In our view, it is just and proper and, therefore, we uphold thefinding of conviction of appellant Nos.1 , 3, and 4.
22. For all these aforementioned reasons, which are relevant inthe facts of this case, we are inclined to interfere only in the quantum ofjail sentence awarded by the High Court and reduce their jail sentenceto the sentence already undergone and at the same time consider it justand proper to enhance the fine amount imposed by the High Court onappellant Nos.1, 3 and 4.
23. So far as the case of appellant No.2 – Suresh(A-2) isconcerned, we have perused the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge,which resulted in his acquittal, and also perused the finding of the HighCourt which resulted in his conviction.
24. Having perused both the findings for deciding the role andinvolvement of appellant No.2 – Suresh in the incident in question, weare inclined to restore the finding of the Sessions Judge rather than thatof the High Court. In other words, we find that the role and involvementof appellant No.2 - Suresh is not established beyond reasonable doubt A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
Awhile inflicting the injuries to Tej Singh and hence, in our view, appellantNo.2-Suresh deserves to be acquitted of the charges leveled againsthim. He is on bail because he is reported to be suffering from lungcancer.
25. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeedBand are allowed in part and the impugned judgment is modified as under:
26. The jail sentence awarded to appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 standsmodified and is accordingly reduced to already undergone. In otherwords, the appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are not now required to undergo anymore jail sentence in connection with the offences in question.
C
27. However, as held above, appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 each ofthem shall pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- by way of fine amount to the legalrepresentatives of late Tej Singh (victim) (total Rs.2,25,000/-) or depositthe said sum (Rs.2,25,000/-) in the Court for being paid to the legalrepresentatives of late Tej Singh. The amount of Rs.2,25,000/- beDdeposited by appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 within three months from the dateof the order.
28. Failure to deposit the amount by anyone of the appellants(Nos.1, 3 & 4) will revive the impugned judgment and in such event, thedefaulting appellant(s) will be taken into custody to undergo remainingEjail sentence awarded by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
29. So far as appeal the appeal in respect of appellant No.2-Sureshis concerned, it is allowed and the conviction of appellant No.2 standsset aside. He is accordingly set free. His bail bonds are cancelled.
Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2018
F
In view of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395of 2018, the appeal is disposed of.
G
Devika Gujral
Appeals disposed of.
H