Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Naranbhai Bhikhabhai Kachchadia vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2016
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, N.V. Ramana
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.418 OF 2016
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3244 of 2016]
NARANBHAI BHIKHABHAI KACHCHADIA ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General for the State of Gujarat.
The allegation against the appellant is that he along with four other accused persons assaulted Dr. Bhimjibhai Laljibhai Dabhi, while he was on duty. The doctor then filed a complaint against the appellant and the other accused persons (total five in number).
A charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 332, 186 and 143 (and other Sections) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Signature Not Verified Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). On conclusion Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2016.05.02 14:39:53 IST Reason: of the trial, the accused were convicted of offences punishable under Sections 332, 186 and 143 of IPC. The appellant was found not guilty for the more serious 2 offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
The sentence awarded by the Trial Court after conviction was three years' imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC and six months' imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently.
The appellant preferred an appeal which came up before the High Court and we are told that the High Court has admitted the appeal and stayed the sentence. The appellant applied for suspension of the conviction since he was a Member of Parliament and in terms of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the conviction entails his automatic disqualification for a period of six years from the membership of Parliament.
By the impugned order dated 18th April, 2016, the High Court considered the case against the appellant and declined to stay the conviction on the ground that an exceptional case was not made out by the appellant.
We are informed that a compromise was entered into by the five accused persons with the victim, i.e., Dr. Dabhi on 1st April, 2016 that is before the conviction. A copy of the compromise is on record and was also filed in the Court of Special Judge of Amreli, Gujarat. Pursuant to the compromise, the accused persons as well as the victim, Dr. Dabhi, appeared before the Special Judge at Amreli and 3 stated that the compromise has been arrived at willfully and without any kind of pressure.
However, since the offences were not compoundable, the Special Judge was unable to act upon the compromise.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue whether the proceedings against the appellant should be quashed in view of his acquittal on a more serious offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and the compromise as well as in view of the further statement made on behalf of the appellant in this Court that he is prepared to pay compensation to Dr. Dabhi and also furnish a bond of good behaviour to the satisfaction of the Special Judge at Amreli.
Under the circumstances, it appears to us, looking to the facts of the case that adverse consequences will certainly follow not only to the appellant but also to his constituents in case the conviction remains. The impact would virtually be irreparable.
Looking also to the nature of the case and the fact that the appellant was acquitted of a more serious offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, we think that this is a fit case for quashing the proceedings initiated against the appellant.
4
In arriving at this conclusion, we have taken into consideration the following factors : (i) The appellant was acquitted of a more serious offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; (ii) The compromise entered into between the parties; (iii) The unconditional offer of compensation by the appellant to the victim; (iv) The unqualified acceptance of the condition by the appellant of submitting a Bond of good behaviour; (v) The somewhat exceptional consequence of the disqualification of the appellant from representing his constituents in Parliament for six years; and (vi) No special reason was given for awarding the maximum punishment to the appellant.
In view of the above, we quash the prosecution against the appellant only. However, we make it clear that the appellant will pay to Dr. Dabhi an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) by way of compensation within a period of one week from today and will also furnish to the satisfaction of the Special Judge at Amreli a bond for good behaviour for a period of one year within one week from today. The learned Special Judge will ensure compliance and inform us accordingly.
The appeal stands disposed of.
5In view of the above, the appeal pending in the High Court filed by the appellant will stand automatically disposed of. This order is only with reference to the appellant and not the other accused persons.
.............................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) .............................J. (N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI APRIL 29, 2016 6 ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIB 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).3244/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/04/2016 in CRMA No. 9096/2016 in CRLA No. 621/2016 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) NARANBHAI BHIKHABHAI KACHCHADIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T.) Date : 29/04/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv. Mr. Devang Vyas, Adv.
for M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR 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 with following observations:
“In view of the above, we quash the prosecution 7 against the appellant only. However, we make it clear that the appellant will pay to Dr. Dabhi an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) by way of compensation within a period of one week from today and will also furnish to the satisfaction of the Special Judge at Amreli a bond for good behaviour for a period of one year within one week from today. The learned Special Judge will ensure compliance and inform us accordingly.” Pending application, if any, is disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)