Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 353, 294 & 504 r/w. 34 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - S.3(1)(x).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] AND [UDAY UMESH LALIT] JJ;
September 04, 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7414 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1118 of 2018) (D.No.27815 of
2018)
Haribhau ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed
against the final judgment and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2006 whereby
the High Court while allowing the appeal with respect to other accused Babarao
Shriram Chaudhary dismissed the appeal with respect to the appellant herein and
confirmed his conviction and sentence awarded to him by order dated 10.04.2006
passed by the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Washim in Atrocities Case No.28 of 2005 by which the appellant and
Babarao had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 294
and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC”) and had directed them to suffer rigorous imprisonment 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 month with fine of Rs.100/under Section 294/34 IPC. All
the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. In
short, the case of the prosecution is that Bala Saheb Ingole (PW1) was serving
as a teacher in Zilla Parishad Primary School at Januna, Tahsil Karanja District
Washim (MH). On 05.04.2005, the appellant (Haribhau) and Babarao, who were
Sarpanch and Member of the Gram Panchayat, Januna respectively visited the
School and asked Bala Saheb as to why he came late in the School. Bala Saheb
offered his explanation.
4. The explanation offered by
Bala Saheb did not satisfy the appellant and Babarao, therefore, they asked
Bala Saheb for book of circleincharge maintained by the School. Since Bala
Saheb did not give the book, the appellant (Haribhau) caught hold of his
shirt's collar and while using abusive language gave kicks and blows to him.
They also gave threat to Bala Saheb for causing injuries endangering his life.
5. It is this incident which
gave rise to lodging of FIR which was followed by the prosecution of the appellant
(Haribhau) and Babarao for commission of offences punishable under Sections
353, 504 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC and in addition under Section
3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 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 punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 294 read with Section 34 of
IPC and awarded the sentences mentioned above. The appellant and Babarao were,
however, acquitted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)
(x) of the SC/ST Act.
7. The appellant and Babarao
felt aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence and filed appeal before
the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. By impugned order, the High Court allowed
the appeal with respect to Babarao and acquitted him of all the charges leveled
against him.
8. So far as the appellant
(Haribhau) is concerned, his appeal was dismissed. In other words, the appellant's
conviction and the sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge was upheld
giving rise to filing 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 essentially one. According to him, out of total
jail sentence awarded to the appellant, he has alreadyundergone one month
actual jail sentence and since then he is on bail.
11. It was his submission that
having regard to the nature of the offence committed by the appellant, his age
(60 years), his spotless career throughout without any criminal antecedents and
lastly, the fact that he has already undergone one month jail sentence in relation
to the offence committed 13 years back, hence this Court while upholding the
appellant’s conviction may consider proper to alter the sentence awarded to the
appellant and reduce it to the extent the period already undergone in jail by
him and instead impose more fine on him to meet the ends of justice.
12. In reply, learned counsel
for the respondentState urged for upholding of the impugned order.
13. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find forcein
the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.
14. In our considered opinion,
firstly, taking into account that the appellant has already undergone one month’s
jail sentence out of three months awarded to him, secondly, the fact that the
incident in question is quite 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 is not required in any other criminal case except the one in question
which the appellant fairly did not deny having committed and rightly did not
challenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and proper to alter the
jail sentence awarded to the appellant from three months to the extent of
period of one month which was already undergone by him and insteadenhance the
total fine amount awarded under different Sections from Rs.800/to Rs.15,000/.
15. In view of the foregoing
discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The jail sentence
awarded to the appellant by the Courts below is altered and is accordingly
reduced to the extent of period of one month which already undergone by him.
16. In other words, the
appellant is now not required to serve any more jail sentence than what he has already
undergone and at the same time the amount of the total fine awarded by the
Courts below is enhanced from Rs.800/to Rs.15,000/for being paid to the complainantBala
Saheb Ingole.
17. Failure to deposit the
fine amount within one month would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded
by the Courts below and the appellant willhave to then undergo the remaining
jail sentence awarded by the Courts below.
18. Let the amount of fine be
deposited by the appellant in Trial Court within one month from the date of
this order for being paid to the Complainant.
Comments
Post a Comment