Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Suresh Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Kurian Joseph, N.V. Ramana
1
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8381/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31/01/2014
in CRLA No. 931/2013 passed by the High Court Of Patna)
SURESH SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report)
Date : 26/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anurag, Adv.
Mr. Janme Jay, Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Kumar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.
MS. Purnima Krishna, adv.
Mr. N.Rai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Sagar,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by (Shashi Sareen) Shashi Sareen Date: 2015.09.01 (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master 09:03:54 IST Reason: (Signed order is placed on the file) 2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1108 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8381 of 2014) SURESH SINGH ... Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ... Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
This appeal arises of out a judgment and order dated 31.01.2014 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby Criminal Appeal No. 931 of 2013 filed by the appellant was allowed in part and to the extent that instead of convicting respondent No.2-accused for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court convicted him under Section 324 of the Code but declined to interfere with the quantum of sentence awarded to the respondent.
Respondent No. 2 is alleged to have assaulted the appellant with a sharp-edged weapon on 16.02.2007 when 3 the appellant was going from his house at Father CPS Public School at Patel Nagar to Boring Road for recharging his mobile at about 1.30 hours. He was rushed to the hospital where he was treated for the injuries sustained by him. A report lodged with the Pataliputra Police Station led to the registration of Criminal Case No. 30 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Completion of the investigation eventually culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna who took cognizance of the offences and tried respondent No. 2 for the same. The Trial Court finally came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established the commission of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC only. The Court taking note of the clean antecedents of respondent No. 2 and his age gave him the benefit of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released him in terms of Section 4(1) thereof on the execution of a bond.
Aggrieved, the appellant-victim of the assault appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 931 of 2013. The said appeal was heard and partly allowed by the High Court in terms of the judgment impugned before us. The High Court by a 4 short and somewhat cryptic order held that the evidence on record warranted the conviction of respondent No. 2 under Section 324 of the IPC instead of Section 323 invoked by the Trial Court. The Court accordingly altered the conviction from Section 323 to 324 but declined to award any sentence to the convict in view the clean antecedents of accused No. 2.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. We have no manner of doubt that the Trial Court was in error in convicting respondent No.2-accused for an offence under Section 323 only keeping in view the nature of the injuries and the medical and occular evidence on record. The High Court was, therefore, justified in altering the conviction to Section 324 of the IPC. To that extent there was no debate at the Bar especially when the conviction under Section 324 recorded by the High Court has not been assailed by respondent No. 2 and has thereby attained finality. The short question that was urged at the Bar by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-victim was about the sentence that ought to have been imposed upon respondent No. 2. it was submitted that keeping in view the nature of the injuries and unprovoked assault mounted by the respondent on an un-armed senior citizen in a public place in broad day light, the Court ought to have taken 5 a serious view of the matter and suitably sentenced the accused who was pronounced guilty. Reliance was placed upon the deposition of the victim appellant according to which the appellant was suffering from a physical disability on account of the injuries sustained by him in the assault. According to the appellant he is because of injury caused to his hand unable to write. So also because of the injury to the leg he has developed a permanent limp. It was submitted that the High Court had let off respondent No. 2 cheaply whereas the court should have sent a strong and clear message to those who indulge in such criminal acts in broad day light. It is submitted that this Court could interfere to undo the injustice resulting from the order passed by the High Court.
On behalf of respondent No. 2-accused it was contended by Mr. N.Rai, learned senior counsel that insofar as conviction of respondent under Section 324 of the IPC was concerned, the same was not challenged and has indeed become final. Even so it was submitted that the Trial Court and the High Court could have in the given circumstances of the case released the convict on a bond as was done in the case at hand. The present case is not according to Mr. Rai a fit case for our intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution of 6 India.
Alternatively it was submitted that even if this Court was inclined to interfere with the view taken by the courts below instead, this Court could instead of sentencing respondent No. 2 to imprisonment consider granting suitable compensation as is envisaged under Section 5 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It was urged that respondent No. 2 is currently working as an Assistant Commander in BSF and any order sentencing him to imprisonment is likely to result in his dismissal from service which would be much too harsh a punishment for an observation committed as early as in the year 2007.
We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. The only question that falls for our determination is whether the High Court was justified in letting off the respondent on a bond of good behaviour. Our answer to that question is in negative. The High Court was in our opinion not justified in declining to interfere with the sentence having regard to the unproved nature of the assault and the injuries sustained by the victim. Even so, we are not at this distinct point of time inclined to award any sentence of imprisonment to respondent No. 2 who appears to be settled in life and currently working as a 7 Assistant Commander in BSF with a family to support. Interest of justice would in our opinion be sufficiently served if we invoke Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and direct that respondent No. 2 shall deposit with the Trial Court compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be disbursed to the appellant. This should in our opinion sufficiently compensate the victim for the injuries and the harassment of litigation that followed as also vindicate his position. We order accordingly.
The amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be deposited by respondent No. 2 within three months from today. In case the amount is not deposited, the same shall be recovered as fine as provided for under Section 5 of the Act.
The appeal is with the above modification disposed of.
.................J. (T.S.THAKUR) ..................J. (KURIAN JOSEPH) ..................J. (N.V.RAMANA) New Delhi, 26th August,2015.