SUBHASH CHANDER BANSAL versus GIAN CHAND AND ORS on 25 January 2018

SUBHASH CHANDER BANSAL

v.

GIAN CHAND AND ORS

(Criminal Appeal No. 1676 of 2009)

JANUARY 25, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – s.325/34 – Prosecution case was thatrespondents-accused caused injuries to two persons with hockey –Trial court acquitted all the five accused persons – High Courtallowed the State’s appeal in part and convicted the four accusedpersons under s.325 r/w s.34, imposing the sentence that was alreadyundergone by them and fine of Rs.50,000 to be paid equally by thefour convicted accused persons – Acquittal of one accused wasupheld by giving him benefit of doubt – Held: The finding of theHigh Court regarding conviction of respondents under s.325 wasbased on proper appreciation of entire prosecution evidence – Asregards the sentence, High Court was of the opinion that therespondents have already undergone some reasonable length ofjail sentence as under-trials and the same was sufficient, more sosince in addition, a fine of Rs.50,000/- was also awarded – Noreason to take a different view from that of the High Court – Theinjured were duly compensated with the fine of Rs.50,000/- –Interference with impugned order not called for.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. In the first place, the High Court convicted fouraccused persons under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC andnot under Section 307 IPC. This finding of the High Court isbased on proper appreciation of entire prosecution evidence andthere is no find any reason to disturb it for convicting therespondents under Section 325 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.[Paras 10, 11][270-C, D]

2. So far as the awarding of sentence for an offencepunishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC isconcerned, the High Court was of the opinion that the respondents

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ahave already undergone some reasonable length of jail sentenceas under-trials and the same appears to be sufficient. The incidentin question occurred as far back as in 1988. 30 years have elapsed.Secondly, in the meantime, one injured also expired. Thirdly, theinjured were duly compensated with the amount of fine ofRs.50,000/-. The quantum of fine awarded in 1988 or so appearsBto be just and reasonable. Moreover, it is the sole discretion ofthe Trial Court and, in this case, the High Court to decide thequantum of fine amount. There is no reason to take a differentview from that of the High Court, which does not call for anyinterference in this appeal. [Paras 12-15][270-E-H; 271-A]CCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo.1676 of 2009.

From the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 04.05.2007passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl.Revision No.174 of 1999.D

Ms. Shalu Sharma, Adv. for the Appellant.

Benant Noor Singh Marok, Satish Goel, Mushtaq Ahmad, Dr.Kailash Chand, Kuldip Singh, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advs. for theRespondents.

EThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by theComplainant against the final judgment and order dated 04.05.2007 passedby the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CriminalRevision No. 174 of 1999 by which the High Court dismissed the criminalFrevision filed by the appellant herein.

2. In order to dispose of the appeal, few relevant facts needmention hereinbelow.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (five accused persons) were prosecutedunder Sections 307/325/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code,1908G(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) for causing injuries to two personsnamely, Om Prakash and Ravinder Kumar, with Hockey at around 7.15p.m. on 29.07.1988. The prosecution was initiated against the respondentson the basis of FIR No. 128 dated 03.08.1988 lodged by the appellantherein, who is the son of Om Prakash (since dead).

H

4. The Trial Court, by order dated 14.11.1998 acquitted all thefive accused persons (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein).

5. The State, being aggrieved by the order of acquitting therespondents, filed criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No.494-DB of1999 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereas thecomplainant filed a Criminal Revision No. 174 of 1999 against the orderof the acquittal.

6. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the State’sappeal in part and convicted the four accused persons namely, GianChand, Krishan Kumar, Lachhman Dass and Bhagwan Dass (respondentNos. 1, 2, 3 and 5) under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC andupheld the acquittal of one accused person, namely, Suresh Kumar -respondent No. 4 by giving him benefit of doubt. The operative part ofjudgment of the High Court reads as under:

“In the above circumstances, acquittal of the respondentscannot be justified. However, having regard to thesubmission made on behalf of Suresh Kumar, we considerit safe to give him benefit of doubt and acquit him but we donot find any valid ground to uphold acquittal of other accused.

Accordingly we convict accused Gian Chand, KrishanKumar, Lachhman Dass and Bhagwan Dass under sections325/34 IPC but having regard to long lapse of time sincethe date of occurrence, we award sentence for the periodof imprisonment already undergone by them, apart fromawarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be shared equallyby PW3 Subhash Chander and PW4 Virender Kumar. It hasbeen 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 HighCourt, has filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court. TheState has not filed any appeal.

8. Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration inthis appeal is whether the High Court having convicted the four accusedpersons under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC was justified in A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aimposing the sentence that was already undergone by them and byimposing a fine of Rs.50,000/- to be paid equally by the four convictedaccused persons.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal. In our opinion,Bthe High Court was right and hence the impugned judgment does notcall for any interference.

10. In the first place, the High Court convicted four accused personsunder Section 325 read with section 34 IPC and not under Section 307IPC. In other words, in the opinion of the High Court, no case was madeCout under Section 307 IPC, but it was essentially a case of a “grievoushurt” falling under Section 325 IPC.

11. This finding of the High Court, in our opinion, is based onproper appreciation of entire prosecution evidence and we do not findany reason to disturb it for convicting the respondents under Section 325DIPC instead of Section 307 IPC.

12. So far as the awarding of sentence for an offence punishableunder Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned, the HighCourt was of the opinion that the respondents have already undergonesome reasonable length of jail sentence as under-trials and the same, inEour 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 ofjustice.

13. Having examined this issue, we find no reason to interfere onthis issue too for the following reasons.F

14. Firstly, the incident in question occurred as far back as in1988, whereas we are now in 2018. In between this period, 30 yearshave 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 quantum of fine awarded in 1988 or so appears to be just andGreasonable. Moreover, it is the sole discretion of the Trial Court and, inthis case, the High Court to decide the quantum of fine amount.

15. Taking into account all these facts, which have emerged fromthe facts of the case, we find no reason to take a different view from H

SUBHASH CHANDER BANSAL v. GIAN CHAND[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

that of the High Court, which does not call for any interference in thisappeal.

16. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Devika Gujral

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H