REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1879 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5562 of 2011)

Nasib Hussain Siddi & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

State of Gujarat …Respondent

O R D E R

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High  

Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby conviction of the  

appellants  for  offences  punishable  under  Sections  325,  

506(2), 333, 342 and 114 IPC has been affirmed and the -

1

sentence  reduced  to  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  1½  

years.  

3. When  the  special  leave  petition  came  up  for  

admission, this Court by its order dated 1st August, 2011  

issued notice to the respondents only on the question of  

sentence. We are not, therefore, examining the validity of  

the order of conviction which both the Courts below have  

passed on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record.  

The only question on which we have heard learned counsel  

for  the  parties  is  whether  the  sentence  awarded  to  the  

appellants needs to be reduced and, if so, to what extent.

4.  The genesis of the case of the appellants lies in an  

incident that took place on 7th September, 2003 at village  

Chitrod  in  the  District  of  Kutch,  State  of  Gujarat.  The  

complainant in the case was, during the relevant period, a  

Constable  posted  at  Chitrod  outpost  of  Police  Station  

Bhimasar. The prosecution case is that at about 10.30 a.m.  

on  7th September,  2003  when  the  complainant  was  on  

patrol  duty,  he  found one  Babubhai  quarrelling  in  public  

place with one Hussain Ibrahim Siddi, accused no.1.  The -

2

constable appears to have accosted the quarrelling duo and  

asked  them  as  to  why  they  were  disturbing  peace  and  

ordered them to accompany him to the police station. This  

appears  to  have  infuriated  Hussain  Ibrahim  Siddi  who  

caught hold of the Constable from his collar  and pushed  

him. In the meantime the son, wife and mother of Hussain  

Ibrahim Siddi also appear to have joined Hussain Ibrahim  

Siddi, exchanged hot words with constable and prevented  

him from taking Hussain Ibrahim Siddi to the Police Station.  

It was on those allegations that Hussain Ibrahim and the  

appellants were tried together for the offences mentioned  

earlier.

5. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 13  

witnesses  to  support  its  case.  The  depositions  of  these  

witnesses were found reliable by the Trial Court resulting in  

the  conviction  of  Hussain  Ibrahim  for  the  offence  

punishable under Section 325 and sentence of five years RI  

besides a fine of Rs.500/-. In default he was directed to  

undergo  a  further  sentence  of  six  months.  He  was  also  

3

convicted under Section 506(2) of the IPC and sentenced to  

-

undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine  

of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment  

for a period of six months. Hussain Ibrahim was in addition  

convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years and  

a  fine  of  Rs.500/-  under  Section  333  and  in  default  to  

undergo further imprisonment of six months. Imprisonment  

for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.100/- was awarded  

to  him  under  Section  342  of  the  IPC  and  in  default  to  

undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month.  

6. In so far as the appellants Hussain Siddi, Malubai wife  

of Ibrahim Siddi and Hawabai wife of Hussain Ibrahim are  

concerned, the Trial Court found them also to be guilty of  

offences  punishable  under  Sections  333  of  the  IPC  and  

sentenced  them  to  undergo  simple  imprisonment  for  a  

period  of  three  years  and  a  fine  of  Rs.200/-.  Malubai  

accused no.3 and appellant before us was also in addition  

convicted  and  sentenced  to  undergo  imprisonment  for  a  

period of three years under Section 506(2) IPC apart from  

4

a fine of Rs.500/-.  In default of payment of fine she was  

sentenced to undergo six months further imprisonment.   

-

7. Aggrieved by the  orders  of  conviction  and sentence  

the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court of  

Gujarat  at  Ahmedabad  who  has  while  upholding  the  

conviction of the appellants reduced the sentence awarded  

to all of them to 1½ years instead of three years.  

7. It is common ground that the appellants, two of whom  

happen  to  be  females  had  not  physically  assaulted  the  

constable.  Even appellant no.1 is not alleged to have used  

any force against the constable in the incident in question.  

The incident itself is nearly ten years old by now. Keeping in  

view  all  these  circumstances  and  the  fact  that  Hussain  

Ibrahim Siddi accused no.1 who was mainly responsible for  

the  grievous  injury  caused  to  the  constable  has  already  

served the sentence awarded to him, we are of the opinion  

that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the  

sentence awarded to the appellants is modified and reduced  

to the sentence already undergone by them.

5

-

8. We order accordingly. The appellants shall  be set at  

liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.   The  

appeal is allowed to the above extent.    

……………………..………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

……………………..………J. (T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi September 28, 2011

6