Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    644/2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)No. 1550/2012)

VINAY & ORS.     .. Appellants  

Versus

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.           ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  arises  out  of  the  judgment  dated  

30.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Karantaka, Circuit  

Bench at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No.515/2010 modifying  

the conviction of the appellants from Section 307 IPC read  

with Section 34 IPC to  Section 326 IPC read with Section 34  

IPC reducing the sentence of imprisonment from three years  

1

Page 2

to  three  months  and  confirming  the  conviction  under  

Section 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC,  thereby reducing  

the  sentence  of  imprisonment  imposed  on  each  of  the  

accused from six months to three months further directing  

the  sentences  to  run  concurrently  and imposing a  fine  of  

Rs.10,000/-.  

3. The appellants  and the complainant-Vishveshwar  

Parameshwar  Hegde (PW-1)  are the real  brothers  and are  

children  of  Smt.  Bharati  (PW-8).  Due  to  quarrel  with  the  

appellants,  PW-1  voluntarily  left  the  parental  house  and  

started  living  separately.  On  23.12.2001,  complainant–

Visheshwar  Parameshwar  Hegde  (PW-1)  along  with  four  

persons viz., PW-2 Chandru V. Bhat, PW-3 Kiran R. Bhat, PW-4  

Chandranath V. Bhat, and PW-5 Madhukar L. Hegde came in  

a Maruti car  to his  parental house in order to remove  the  

almirah  and  his  other  personal  belongings,  for  which  the  

appellants objected which resulted in quarrel  between the  

parties.  In  the  heat  of  moment,  appellant  No.1  hit  the  

complainant with  club and when PWs 2 to 5  came to PW-1’s  

rescue, they were also indiscriminately attacked by all  the  2

Page 3

three appellants with chopper and sickles.  The appellants  

also  damaged  the  car  glasses  and  tyres,   in  which  PW-1  

came  along  with  his  associates.   In  the  scuffle,  the  

appellants  also  received  simple  injuries.   PW-1  and  other  

injured  witnesses  somehow  got  themselves  rescued  and  

were admitted in the Government Hospital, Sirsi.  Based on  

the  statement  of  PW-1,  on  the  same  day,  F.I.R.   was  

registered in Crime No. 146/2001 with the Sirsi  Rural Police  

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324,  

326,427,  and  506  IPC  read  with  Section  34  IPC.  PW-14  

Investigating Officer had taken up the investigation and went  

to  the place of  occurrence and recovered the weapons of  

assault (MOs 1 to 3) and drew the spot panchnama, arrested  

the accused-appellants and seized the blood stained clothes  

of the appellants.  After completion of investigation by PW-

14, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants for  

the aforesaid offences.  Case was committed to the Sessions  

Court and charges under Sections 307,  427 IPC read with  

Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused–appellants.  

3

Page 4

To prove their case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and  

exhibited 26 documents and 15 material objects.  

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, trial  

court  arrived at the conclusion that the nature of weapons  

and  nature  of  grievous  injuries  caused  to  the  injured  

witnesses  (PWs  1  to  5)  would  show   the  intention  and  

knowledge  of   the  appellants–accused  to  kill   the  

complainant and his associates and by its judgment dated  

29.4.2010  convicted  the   appellants  for  the  offences  

punishable  under  Sections  307  and   427  IPC   read  with  

Section 34 IPC.  Each of the appellants were sentenced to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years  with a fine of  

Rs.4,000/- with default clause for offence under Section  307  

IPC  read  with  Section  34  IPC.   For   the  conviction  under  

Section 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC,  appellants were  

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months  

with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default clause.    

5. Appellants being aggrieved by their conviction and  

sentence, filed appeal before the High Court of Karnataka,  

4

Page 5

Circuit  Bench at  Dharwad.   State  being  aggrieved by  the  

inadequate  sentence  awarded  to  the  appellants   under  

Section 307 IPC, preferred cross appeal for enhancement of  

the sentence.  By the common judgment dated 30.11.2011,  

the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the appellants  

and modified the conviction of the appellants from Section  

307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to  Section 326 IPC read  

with Section 34 IPC and accordingly reduced the sentence of  

imprisonment  to three months and dismissed the appeal of  

the  State.   High  Court  confirmed  the  conviction  of  the  

appellants under Section 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC  

and  reduced  the  sentence    of  imprisonment  to  three  

months.   In  addition,  High  Court  also  imposed  a  fine  of  

Rs.10,000/-  on  each  of   the  appellants   to  be  paid  as  

compensation  to the injured.  Being aggrieved, this appeal  

has been filed by the appellants challenging their conviction  

and sentence of imprisonment.   

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  

the complainant accompanied by his associates (PWs 2 to 5)  

armed  with  weapons  trespassed  into  the  house  of  the  5

Page 6

appellants  in  breach of  subsisting  injunction  order  passed  

against them and the appellants acted in their right of self-

defence in protection of their property which aspect was not  

properly   appreciated   and  the  courts  below  erred  in  

convicting the appellants under Sections 326 and 427 IPC  

read with Section 34 IPC.  

7.  We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent-State who supported the judgment of the High  

Court.

8. Admittedly, there is long standing dispute between  

the real brothers.  The presence of the parties at the place of  

occurrence is admitted by both the parties.  Admittedly, on  

the date of occurrence, the complainant went to bring  his  

Almirah  kept  in  his  parental  house  at  Padageri  and  was  

conversing with his mother (PW-8).  At that time, accused–

appellants  came  armed  with  sickles  and  talwars (swords)  

and attacked PW-1 on his head  and right hand.  When PWs 2  

to 5 tried to rescue PW-1, they were also attacked by the  

appellants. Complaint and his associates  have consistently  

6

Page 7

deposed about the incident and the attack on them by the  

appellants with sickles and the injuries  sustained by them.  

The testimony of the injured witnesses is also supported  by  

the medical evidence.  Dr. Rama Hegde (PW-13) attached to  

Pandit  Government  Hospital,  Sirsi  where  complainant  was  

admitted and examined has stated that Kiran R. Bhat (PW-3),  

Chandranath V. Bhat (PW-4),  Madhukar L. Hegde (PW-5), and  

Vishveshwar P. Hegde (PW-1) had suffered grievous injuries  

and  that same could be caused by sharp and blunt objects  

and to  that  effect  he has issued  wound certificates.  The  

wound  certificates  show  that  complainant  Vishveshwar  P.  

Hegde  (PW-1)  and  Kiran  R.  Bhat,  Chandranath    R.  Bhat,  

Madhukar  L.  Hegde  (PWs  3  to  5)  have  sustained  one  

grievous injury each and other injuries are simple in nature.  

Chandru V. Bhat (PW-2) has sustained simple injuries.  As the  

appellants  wielded  deadly weapons,  namely,  sickles and  

talwars and that PWs 1, 3 , 4 and 5 have sustained grievous  

injuries, the courts below  rightly convicted the appellants  

under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under  

Section 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

7

Page 8

9. So  far  as  the  contention  regarding  quantum  of  

sentence, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  

the  appellants  and  the  complainant  party  are  the  real  

brothers and that  in the sudden quarrel and  in the heat of  

passion,  both  parties  attacked  each   other  and  that  the  

accused parties also sustained  injuries and therefore prayed  

for  reduction  of  sentence,  which  in  our  view,  merits  

consideration.  On the date of occurrence,  PW-1 along with  

his  associates  went  to  his  parental  house  and  injured  

witnesses were armed with  weapons  to the parental house  

to remove the Almirah  and his belongings.  The appellants-

accused also suffered contusion  and abrasion.   Dr. Rama  

Hegde (PW-13) noted simple injuries on the person of the  

accused-appellants  and issued wound certificates Ext.P22 to  

P24.   In  his  cross-examination  PW-13  also  opined  that  

injuries on the person of the accused could be caused by  

sharp and blunt objects.  The complainant party went to the  

house of the accused for  removal of Almirah and  certain  

personal  belongings.   There  was  animosity  between  two  

factions  which  led  to  attack  and  injuries  on  both  sides.  

8

Page 9

Nature  of  injuries  on  the  person  of  complainant  and  the  

complainant  party  and  the  accused  party  suggested  that  

both parties attacked each other  and the appellants seem to  

have exceeded the right of private defence, if any. After the  

occurrence,  more  than  thirteen  years  have  passed,  the  

complainant  party  and  the  accused  are  entangled  in  

litigation.   Considering  the  totality  of  facts  and  

circumstances of the case and the relationship between the  

parties,  interest  of  justice  would  be  met  by  reducing  the  

sentence and imposing fine.

10. Sub-section (1) of Section 357 provides power to  

award  compensation  to  victims  of  the  offence  out  of  the  

sentence of fine imposed on accused.   After referring to Hari  

Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors., (1988) 4 SCC 551 and other  

decisions  in  Ankush  Shivaji  Gaikwad  vs.  State  of   

Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, this Court held as under:  

“30. In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, ((1988) 4 SCC 551 this  Court  lamented  the  failure  of  the  courts  in  awarding  compensation  to  the  victims  in  terms  of  Section  357(1)  CrPC.  The Court recommended to all courts to exercise the  power available under Section 357 Cr PC liberally so as to  meet the ends of justice.  The Court said: (SCC PP.557-58,  para 10)

9

Page 10

“10. …Sub-section (1) of Section 357 provides  power to award compensation to victims of the  offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on  accused.  ….It  is  an  important  provision  but  courts have seldom invoked it.  Perhaps due to  ignorance of the object of it.  It empowers the  court to award compensation to victims while  passing judgment of conviction.  In addition to  conviction, the court may order the accused to  pay some amount by way of compensation to  victim  who  has  suffered  by  the  action  of  accused.  It may be noted that this power of  courts to award compensation is not ancillary  to other sentences but it is in addition thereto.  This  power was intended to do something to  reassure  the  victim  that  he  or  she  is  not  forgotten in the criminal justice system.  It is a  measure of responding appropriately to crime  as  well  of  reconciling   the  victim  with  the  offender.  It is, to some extent, a constructive  approach to crimes.  It is indeed a step forward  in our criminal justice system.  We, therefore,  recommend to all courts to exercise this power  liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a  better way. (emphasis supplied)

………….. 32. In  Sarwan Singh  v.  State  of  Punjab,  (1978)  4  SCC  111, Balraj v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 29, Baldev Sigh v.  State of Punjab, (1995) 6 SCC 593,  Dilip S. Dahanukar v.   Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 528 this Court held  that  the  power  of  the  courts  to  award  compensation  to  victims  under  Section  357  is  not  ancillary  to  other  sentences but  in  addition thereto and that  imposition of  fine and/or grant of compensation to a great extent must  depend upon the relevant factors apart from such fine or  compensation  being  just  and  reasonable.   In  Dilip  S.  Dahanukar case this Court even favoured an inquiry albeit  summary in nature to determine the paying capacity of the  offender.  The Court said: (SCC p.545, para 38)

‘38. The purpose of imposition of fine and/or  grant of compensation to a great extent must  be  considered  having  the  relevant  factors  therefore in mind.  It may be compensating the  person in one way or the other. The amount of  compensation  sought  to  be  imposed,  thus,  

10

Page 11

must be reasonable and not arbitrary.  Before  issuing  a  direction  to  pay  compensation,  the  capacity of the accused to pay the same must  be judged.  A fortiori, an enquiry in this behalf  even  in  a  summary  way,  may  be  necessary.  Some  reasons,  which  may  not  be  very  elaborate, may also have to be assigned; the  purpose  being  that  whereas  the  power  to  impose  fine  is  limited  and  direction  to  pay  compensation  can  be  made  for  one  or  the  other factors enumerated out of the same; but  sub-section (3) of Section 357 does not impose  any such limitation and thus, power thereunder  should be exercised only in appropriate cases.  Such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised at the  whims and caprice of a Judge.”

The amount  of  compensation  is  to  be  determined  by  the  

courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each  

case, nature of the offence and the capacity of the accused  

to  pay.   Considering  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  

present  case  and  the  nature  of  the  offence,  sentence  of  

imprisonment of three months imposed on the appellants is  

reduced to the period already undergone by them and also  

imposing  a  fine  of  Rs.25,000/-  so  as  to  compensate  the  

injured witnesses in addition to the compensation awarded  

by the High Court.w

11

Page 12

11. The conviction   of the appellants under Section  

326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 427 IPC read  

with      Section  34  IPC  is  confirmed.  Sentence  of  

imprisonment of three months imposed on them is reduced  

to  the  period  already  undergone  by  each  of  them.  

Additionally,  the fine of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on each of  

the appellants–accused  and in default to undergo sentence  

of imprisonment of three months.  Out of the fine amount to  

be  deposited  by  the  appellants–accused,  the  injured  

witnesses PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 (Vishveshwar  P. Hegde, Kiran R.  

Bhat,  Chandranath V.  Bhat and  Madhukar L.  Hegde) who  

sustained  grievous  injuries  shall  be  paid  compensation  of  

Rs.17,500/-  each and PW 2-Chandru V.  Bhat  who suffered  

simple injuries shall  be paid compensation  of Rs. 5,000/-.  

With the above modification, the appeal is allowed in part.

…………………J.   (T.S. Thakur)  

…………………J.      (R. Banumathi)  

12

Page 13

New Delhi; April 16, 2015  

13