1

           REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 394-395 OF 2018

Naresh & Ors. ... Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Uttarakhand  & Ors.      ... Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 396 OF 2018

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Criminal Appeal Nos.394-395 of 2018

1. These appeals are filed by the accused persons

against the common final judgment and order dated

10.07.2017/17.07.2017 passed by the High Court

of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.91

of 2011 (filed by the complainant) and Government

2

Appeal  No.42  of  2011  whereby  the  High  Court

allowed  the  appeals  of  the  State  and  the

Complainant  and  set  aside  the  order  dated

16.03.2011  passed  by  the   Additional  Judge,

Haridwar  in  Sessions  Trial  Nos.286  of  1999  and

found  the  accused  persons,  Naresh,  Suresh,

Ashish@Sheshraj  and  Rajendra  guilty  for

commission  of  the  offences  punishable  under

Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

“IPC”)  and accordingly sentenced each of  them as

under:

Accused Trial Court High Court

Naresh (A-1)

Acquitted  under Sections  307/34, 323/34,  324/34 and 504IPC

Convicted  under Sections  307/34, 323/34,  324/34 and 504 IPC 5  years  R.I.  and Rs.5000/-  under Section 307 IPC

6  months  R.I.  and Rs.500/-  under Section 323/34 IPC

2  years  R.I.  and Rs.500/-  under

3

Section 324/34 IPC

1  year  R.I.  and Rs.1000/-  under Section 504 IPC

Suresh (A-2)

Acquitted  u/s 307/34,  323/34, 324/34  and  504 IPC

Convicted  under Section  307/34, 323/34,  324/34 and 504 IPC

6  months  R.I.  and Rs.500/-  under Section 323/34 IPC

2  years  R.I.  and Rs.500/-  under Section 324/34 IPC

1  year  R.I.  and Rs.1000/-  under Section 504 IPC (However,  on account  of  the advance  stage  of lung  cancer,  2 years  R.I.  u/s  307 IPC)

Ashish@ Shesh Raj  (A-3)

Acquitted  u/s 307/34,  323/34, 324/34  and  504 IPC

Convicted  under Sections  307/34, 323/34,  324/34 and 504 IPC 5  years  R.I.  and Rs.5000/-  under Section 307 IPC

6  months  R.I.  and Rs.500/-  under Section 323/34 IPC

2  years  R.I.  and Rs.500/-  under Section 324/34 IPC

1  year  R.I.  and Rs.1000/-  under Section 504 IPC

4

Rajendra (A-4)

Acquitted  u/s 307/34,  323/34, 324/34  and  504 IPC

Convicted  under Sections  307/34, 323/34,  324/34 and 504 IPC 5  years  R.I.  and Rs.5000/-  under Section 307 IPC

6  months  R.I.  and Rs.500/-  under Section 323/34 IPC

2  years  R.I.  and Rs.500/-  under Section 324/34 IPC

1  year  R.I.  and Rs.1000/-  under Section 504 IPC

2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the

appeals,  few relevant  facts  need  to  be  mentioned

hereinbelow.

3. The appellants herein are  the  accused.  They

are  Naresh  (A-1),  Suresh  (A-2),  Ashish  (A-3)  and

Rajendra (A-4).  

4. These  four  accused  faced  prosecution  for

commission of offences punishable under Sections

307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 of the IPC.

5

5. In  short,  the  prosecution  case  against  these

four  appellants  was  that  on  26.05.1998,  they

attacked one person by name “Tej Singh” with axe

and  caused  injuries  to  him  on  his  body.   The

injuries were abrasion, contusion, and one lacerated

wound (see page 86 of appeal paper book-Annexure-

P/2 doctor’s opinion).  

6. It  is  this  incident  which  led  to  filing  of  FIR

(No.83/1998) on 27.05.1998 by PW-4 Jaswir Singh

against  four  accused  in  PS Haridwar-Laksar.  The

four appellants were accordingly apprehended and

put  to  trial.  The  Additional  Sessions  Judge,

Haridwar, by order dated 16.03.2011, acquitted all

the four appellants (accused).  

7. The State and the Complainant felt aggrieved

and filed leave to file appeals before the High Court

seeking  permission  to  question  the  legality  and

correctness of the order of the appellants’ acquittal.

Leave was granted.   Naresh Kumar(A-1)  also filed

6

Criminal  Appeal  No.126  of  2011  before  the  High

Court.

8. By  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court

allowed the appeals filed by the Complainant and

the  State  and  set  aside  the  order  passed  by  the

Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar and sentenced

all the accused persons for the offences punishable

under various sections mentioned supra.

9. However, taking into consideration the disease

suffered by Suresh(A-2), i.e., advanced stage of lung

cancer,  he  was  sentenced  to  undergo  two  years

rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC.  The

Court  directed  the  State  to  admit  him  at  Civil

hospital, Roorkee for medical treatment.       

10. The appellants (accused) felt aggrieved by the

judgment of the High Court and filed these appeals

by way of special leave in this Court.

11. The  short  question,  which  arises  for

consideration in these appeals, is whether the High

7

Court  was  justified  in  reversing  the  order  of

acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge

and convicting the appellants.  

12. Heard  Mr.  Sushil  Kr.  Jain,  learned  senior

counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar

Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

13. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeals in part insofar as

Suresh-Accused  No.2  (appellant  No.  2  herein)  is

concerned  and  acquit  him  of  the  charges  by

restoring  the  order  of  the  Additional  Sessions

Judge.

14.  So  far  as  the  remaining  three  accused-

appellants  are  concerned,  namely,  the  appellant

Nos.1,  3  and  4,  we  modify  their  respective  jail

sentences  awarded  by  the  High  Court  mentioned

above  and  reduced  to  what  they  have  already

undergone and enhance the fine amount awarded

8

by  the  High  Court,  i.e.,  from  Rs.7000/-   to

Rs.75,000/- to each appellant.  

15. This  we  are  inclined  to  do  for  the  following

reasons.

16. First,  the  incident  is  of  1998 and we are  in

2018.  In  other  words,  it  is  now  almost  20  years

have passed that this litigation is pending in various

Courts.

17.  Second, there were seven injuries noticed by

the doctor on the body of injured-Tej Singh but the

injuries noticed were not very serious in nature as

would be clear from the Doctor's report mentioned

above.  

18. Third, Tej Singh survived leaving no disability

much less permanent on his body due to causing of

the injuries and lived for twenty years after the date

of alleged incident and died recently in last week as

was stated by learned counsel for the appellants.

9

19. Fourth,  all  the  appellants(accused)  have

undergone  almost  one  year  of  jail  sentence

including  remission  out  of  the  total  jail  sentence

awarded by the High Court except appellant No.2 –

Suresh(A-2), who underwent around three months.

20.  Fifth, all the appellants were first offender and

were not found involved in any criminal activity in

the  last  20  years,  though  remained  on  bail

throughout and lastly, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are

reported to be in Government Service.

21. However, so far as the involvement of appellant

Nos.1,  3  and  4,  in  commission  of  offence  in

question,  is  concerned,  we  have  perused  the

findings of the High Court qua each and find that no

case for interference on such findings of fact though

of reversal is called for by this Court. In our view, it

is  just  and  proper  and,  therefore,  we  uphold  the

finding of conviction of appellant Nos.1 , 3, and 4.

10

22. For  all  these  aforementioned  reasons,  which

are relevant in the facts of this case, we are inclined

to  interfere  only  in  the  quantum of  jail  sentence

awarded  by  the  High  Court  and  reduce  their  jail

sentence to the sentence already undergone and at

the  same  time  consider  it  just  and  proper  to

enhance  the  fine  amount  imposed  by  the  High

Court on appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4.  

23. So  far  as  the  case  of  appellant  No.2  –

Suresh(A-2)  is  concerned,  we  have  perused  the

finding  of  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  which

resulted  in  his  acquittal,  and  also  perused  the

finding  of  the  High  Court  which  resulted  in  his

conviction.  

24. Having perused both the findings for deciding

the role and involvement of appellant No.2 – Suresh

in  the  incident  in  question,  we  are  inclined  to

restore  the  finding  of  the  Sessions  Judge  rather

than that of the High Court.  In other words, we find

11

that  the role  and involvement of  appellant  No.2 -

Suresh is not established beyond reasonable doubt

while inflicting the injuries to Tej Singh and hence,

in our view, appellant No.2-Suresh deserves to be

acquitted of the charges leveled against him. He is

on bail because he is reported to be suffering from

lung cancer.  

25.   In the light of the foregoing discussion, the

appeals  succeed and are  allowed in part  and the

impugned judgment is modified as under:  

26. The jail sentence awarded to appellant Nos.1,

3 and 4 stands modified and is accordingly reduced

to already undergone.  In other words, the appellant

Nos.1, 3 and 4 are not now required to undergo any

more jail sentence in connection with the offences in

question.  

27. However, as held above, appellant Nos.1, 3 and

4 each of them shall pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- by

way of fine amount to the legal representatives of

12

late  Tej  Singh  (victim)  (total  Rs.2,25,000/-)  or

deposit the said sum (Rs.2,25,000/-) in the Court

for being paid to the legal representatives of late Tej

Singh. The amount of Rs.2,25,000/-  be deposited

by appellant  Nos.1,  3 and 4 within three months

from the date of the order.

28.  Failure to deposit the amount by anyone of

the  appellants  (Nos.1,  3  &  4)  will  revive  the

impugned  judgment  and  in  such  event,  the

defaulting appellant(s) will be taken into custody to

undergo  remaining  jail  sentence  awarded  by  the

High Court in the impugned judgment.

29. So  far  as  appeal  the  appeal  in  respect  of

appellant  No.2-Suresh  is  concerned,  it  is  allowed

and  the  conviction  of  appellant  No.2  stands  set

aside.  He is accordingly set free. His bail bonds are

cancelled.

13

Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2018

In  view  of  the  judgment  passed  in  Criminal

Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2018, the appeal is disposed

of.

………………………………..J  (R.K. AGRAWAL)

           …..………………………………J.      (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

New Delhi, April 25, 2018