Page 1

Crl.A. No.463 of 2016 @ SLP(Crl.) No.1754/2016

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.463 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1754 of 2016)

Bijender @ Papu and Anr. …..Appellants   

                           Versus

State of Haryana              …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. This criminal appeal arises from a special leave petition

in which notice was issued solely on the question of sentence.

From that point of view, it is necessary to keep in mind only

the relevant broad features of the prosecution case that were

accepted by the trial  court  leading to  conviction of  the two

appellants as well as three others under Section 325 read with

Section 149 and under Sections 148A, 308/149 and 323/149

of the IPC. The Trial Court imposed punishment of rigorous

1

Page 2

Crl.A. No.463 of 2016 @ SLP(Crl.) No.1754/2016

imprisonment for three years alongwith a fine of Rs.12,000/-

each  for  the  offence  under  Section  308/149  and  lesser

sentences  including  fines  for  the  remaining  offences.

Rs.70,000/- out of the fine amount was ordered to be paid to

the  injured  Budhram  by  way  of  compensation.   The  High

Court heard the appeal of all  the five convicts against their

conviction and sentence together with a criminal revision filed

on behalf of the injured Budhram for converting the conviction

of all for the offence under Section 307 IPC and for enhanced

punishment.   The  High  Court  considered  the  materials  in

detail  and  held  the  appellants  as  well  as  other  three

co-accused  guilty  of  offence  punishable  only  under  Section

325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.  While

maintaining the conviction and sentence for the other minor

offences,  the  High  Court,  for  the  aforesaid  major  offence

enhanced  the  sentence  to  RI  for  five  years  and  fine  of

Rs.20,000/- each and in default the concerned convict has to

undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. On behalf of the appellants it has been highlighted that

the  other  three  co-accused  who  were  convicted  for  similar

2

Page 3

Crl.A. No.463 of 2016 @ SLP(Crl.) No.1754/2016

offences  were  ordered by  the  High Court  to  be  released on

probation  of  good  conduct  for  the  term  of  imprisonment.

Although such relief  was granted to those three co-accused

mainly on consideration of their old age varying between 85 to

75 years, the appellants claim parity on account of similar role

assigned to all the five convicts.

3. It was also highlighted that the occurrence is of 1997 and

the ordeal of long trial has been faced by the appellants for

about 19 years.

4.  The parity claimed by the appellants is  misconceived.

The concession shown to other three convicts was mainly on

the  ground  of  their  extreme  old  age  and  that  in  our  view

justified  the  special  treatment  extended in  their  case.   The

High Court  enhanced the  sentence  from three  years to  five

years RI for the main offence because it was concerned and

moved by the suffering of the injured Budhram on account of

the sole head injury caused by lathi.  Budhram was brought to

court but was unable to depose because of mental impairment

suffered by him.  Had the prosecution witnesses been able to

pinpoint  the  accused  who  caused  the  head  injury  on

3

Page 4

Crl.A. No.463 of 2016 @ SLP(Crl.) No.1754/2016

Budhram,  we  would  have  definitely  treated  him  to  be

responsible  of  a  graver  offence  meriting  higher  punishment

but unfortunately no such specific role has been assigned to

any of the five convicts.  In such a situation, considering the

other facts and circumstances, particularly the genesis of the

occurrence which was on account of  a dispute between the

parties  over  a  right  to  have  a  drain  in  a  passage,  we  are

persuaded to reduce the period of sentence for  the offences

under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC in respect

of  both  the  appellants  from  five  years  to  three  years  RI.

However, the amount of fine and conviction and sentence for

other offences are left intact.  

5. With  the  aforesaid  modification  in  the  sentence  of  the

appellants, the Appeal is disposed of.

                    …………………………………….J.

     [DIPAK MISRA]

    …………………………………….J.                  [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi. June 03, 2016.

4