Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 333 ipc in Razia Khan vs The State Of M.P. on 3 August, 2023Matching Fragments
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 353 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). The Sessions Court convicted the appellant for all three offences. For the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 353 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and for the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of ₹2,000/. By the impugned judgment, the High Court while upholding the conviction, brought down the substantive sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the three offences. On 9th May 2023, this Court issued a notice confined only to the sentencing part.
6. At the same time, we cannot ignore that the appellant indulged in the objectionable act of entering the chamber of PW6 who was discharging his official duty as a public servant. At that time, PW6 was holding a meeting with the officials including PW1. The appellant abused PW6 by using very bad language. At that time, PW1 tried to stop the appellant but the appellant pushed PW1. As a result, PW1 suffered a fracture in her little right finger. That is how both Courts have held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 333, 353 and 451 of the IPC.
8. Considering the seriousness of the offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC and since the punishment prescribed is both of imprisonment of either description and a fine, obviously, the appellant cannot be let off only on a fine. However, considering the circumstances set out in paragraph 5 above, we are of the view that the appellant deserves to be shown leniency when it comes to the substantive sentence. The distinct factors set out in paragraph no.5, taken individually, do not constitute a ground by itself to show leniency. For example, only because an accused is on bail for a long time, it is no ground by itself to show leniency. It is only one of the several factors to be considered. But we have considered these factors cumulatively. Hence, we propose to bring down the sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 333 to simple imprisonment for one month. We propose to impose a fine of ₹30,000/ for the said offence.
Looking at the factors set out in paragraph 5, we propose to sentence the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of ₹25,000/.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction of the appellant by both the Courts for offences punishable under Sections 333, 353 and 451 of the IPC is confirmed. For the offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of ₹30,000/ within one month from today. For the offence punishable under Section 451 of the IPC, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of ₹25,000/ within a period of one month from today. We bring down the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC by directing the appellant to pay a fine of ₹20,000/ within a period of one month from today. The fine amounts as aforesaid shall be deposited in the Trial Court. The fine amounts will be inclusive of the fine of ₹2,000/ directed to be paid by the trial Court. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.