Supreme Court of India
SURENDRAN versus SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 30 June 2021
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 171
SURENDRAN
v.
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 2021)
JUNE 30, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, VINEET SARAN AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Sentence / Sentencing – Trial Court (Magistrate) convictedappellant u/ss.279, 338 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment forsix months and fine of Rs.500/- u/s.337 IPC – Conviction upheld bySessions Judge and High Court – Appellant, however, was on bailall throughout – Appeal before Supreme Court – Question of sentence– Plea of appellant that he was sole earning member of a poorfamily consisting of four children and his wife; and if he was sent tojail after so many years, he will suffer irreparable injury – Held:Conviction of appellant affirmed – However, on facts, specially thefact that 26 years had elapsed from the date of commission of offence,six months sentence u/ss. 279 and 338 IPC substituted by fine ofRs.1000/- each whereas fine u/s.337 IPC maintained – Penal Code,1860 – ss. 279, 337 and 338.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: There is no error in conviction recorded by the TrialCourt. The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, lookingto the facts and circumstances of the present case specially thefact that 26 years have elapsed from the incident, this Court isinclined to substitute the sentence of six months imprisonmentunder Section 279 and 338 IPC into fine. Six months sentenceunder Section 279 and 338 IPC are substituted by fine of Rs.1000/- each whereas sentence of fine under Section 337 IPC ismaintained. [Para 11][174-A-B]
Prakash Chandra Agnihotri v. State of M.P. (1990)Supp. SCC 764 - distinguished.
A.P Raju v. State of Orissa 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 385 -referred to.
171
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ACase Law Reference
(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 385referred toPara 7(1990) Supp. SCC 764distinguishedPara 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.B536 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2015 of the High Courtof Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2525 of 2003.
P.A. Noor Muhamed, Ms. Giffara S., Bilal Niamathulla, Ms.Ruxana P.N., Advs. for the Appellant.C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
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. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the HighDCourt dated 01.09.2015 dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by theappellant challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 279, 337and 338 IPC.
3. The appellant, a bus driver, while driving bus No.KL7D 4770caused an accident on 16.02.1995 in which car driver of KL 10B 5634Ewas injured. The appellant was charged with offence under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate vide hisjudgment dated 28.04.1999 convicted the accused under Section 279IPC and 338 IPC and sentence him to undergo six months imprisonmentand fine of Rs.500/- was imposed, in default to undergo simpleFimprisonment for one month under Section 337 IPC.
4. An appeal was filed by the appellant which was dismissed by thelearned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 29.05.2003. Criminal Revisionwas filed in the High Court challenging the judgment of the learned SessionsJudge which Criminal Revision petition has been dismissed by the HighGCourt vide the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2015.
5. This Court on 01.08.2016 issued notice only on the question ofsentence. Service of notice is complete but no one has appeared forrespondent.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant isHsole bread earning member of a poor family consisting of four children and his wife. It is submitted that the appellant if sent to jail after morethan 21 years, will suffer irreparable injury.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance onjudgment of this Court in A.P. Raju versus State of Orissa, 1995Supp.(2) SCC 385 and Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus State ofM.P., (1990) Supp. SCC 764.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for theappellant and have perused the record.
9. The judgment of this Court in Prakash Chandra Agnihotri(Supra) as relied by learned counsel for the appellant does support hissubmissions. In the above case, the accused was convicted and sentencedfor six months under Section 304A. This Court converted the sentence ofimprisonment into fine of Rs.500/-. The Court was of the view that itwould be harsh to send the appellant to the Jail after 18 years of theoccurrence. Following was observed in paragraph 1 of the judgment: - “1. The Courts below have maintained the conviction of the appellantunder Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. We have gone throughthe judgments of courts below and we find no infirmity therein.We uphold the conviction. The occurrence took place on February18, 1972. The appellant has throughout been on bail. He has beensentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.250.We are of the view that it would be rather harsh to send the appellantto jail after 18 years of the occurrence. The ends of justice wouldbe met if the appellant is asked to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. Thesentence is thus converted to a fine of Rs.2000/-. On realisationthe amount shall be paid to the family of the deceased girl. Theamount be deposited with the Trial Court within two months fromtoday and the trial court shall disburse the same to the parents ofthe girl and in absence of the parents to the next of kin of the girl.In default of the payment of fine the appellant shall undergoimprisonment for six months.”
10. The incident took place on 16.02.1995 i.e. more than 26 yearsago. It appears that appellant was throughout on the bail. The Trial Courtafter marshalling the evidence has recorded the conviction under Section279, 338 and awarded sentence of imprisonment of six months and furthersentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A11. We do not find any error in conviction recorded by the TrialCourt. The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking to thefacts and circumstances of the present case specially the fact that 26years have elapsed from the incident, we are inclined to substitute thesentence of six months imprisonment under Section 279 and 338 intofine. Six months sentence under Section 279 and 338 IPC are substitutedBby fine of Rs.1000/- each whereas sentence of fine under Section 337IPC is maintained.
12. The accused may deposit the fine of Rs.1000+1000 i.e.Rs.2000/- within a period of one month in the Trial Court. The judgmentsof the Courts below are modified to the above extent. The appeal isCpartly allowed accordingly.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal partly allowed.
D
E
F
G
H