Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.290 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.5609 OF 2013)

STATE OF M.P.           …APPELLANT

VERSUS

MEHTAAB           …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  by  the  State  of  

Madhya Pradesh against judgment and order dated 6th  

November, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya  

Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.72 of 2007  

reducing  the  sentence  awarded  to  the  respondent  

under  Section  304A of  the  Indian  Penal  Code (“IPC”)  

from RI for one year and under Section 337 IPC from RI  

for three months to RI for 10 days which was the period  

already undergone by him.

Page 2

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5609 of 2013

3. On 22nd November, 1997, the deceased Sushila Bai  

wife of PW 4 Ram Charan along with her husband was  

returning  from  Village  Ragho  Garh  to  their  home  in  

village Kudhaidher. The respondent accused had drawn  

electricity wire from the pole upto his field which was  

not visible in the darkness.  Ram Charan got trapped in  

the  wire  and  became  unconscious.   The  deceased  

Sushila  Bai  received  electric  shock  in  the  process  of  

removing the wire.  On receiving the information PW 5  

Mishrilal, brother of Sushila Bai and PW 1 Kallu reached  

the site of the incident along with PW 3 Goverdhan and  

PW 2 Somlal.  It was found that Sushila Bai had died  

while Ram Charan was injured but alive.  He was taken  

to  the  hospital.   FIR  was  lodged.   Post  mortem   

was  conducted  on  the  dead  body  and  after  

investigation, the respondent accused was sent up for  

trial under Section 304-A/337 IPC.  The accused denied  

the  allegations  and  alleged  that  he  was  falsely  

implicated.

4. The prosecution examined PW 6 Dr. N.K. Sharma  

to  the  effect  that  the  deceased  and  Ram  Charan  

2 2

Page 3

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5609 of 2013

received injuries by electric current and that Sushila Bai  

had died due to shock of the current.  PW 1 Kallu as well  

as PW 4 Ram Charan clearly deposed that the wire was  

laid by Mehtaab from the pole to the field which was  

lying naked and resulted in the death of Sushila Bai.  

This  action  clearly  amounted  to  the  offence  alleged.  

The  said  evidence  was  corroborated  by  the  other  

witnesses.  Accordingly,  the  trial  Court  convicted  the  

respondent-accused under  Section  304A and 337 IPC  

and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and pay  

fine of Rs.500/-  in default to undergo further RI for one  

month under Section 304-A and to undergo RI for three  

months  under  Section  337  IPC.   The  conviction  and  

sentence having been upheld by the Court of Session,  

the respondent preferred a revision petition before the  

High  Court.   The  respondent  did  not  challenge  his  

conviction  but  only  sought  reduction  in  sentence  of  

imprisonment.  The said prayer was accepted and the  

sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  High  Court,  the  

State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal.

3 3

Page 4

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5609 of 2013

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the  

accused respondent had installed a transformer in his  

field  and  left  the  electric  wires  naked  which  was  a  

negligent  act.   The  deceased  Sushila  Bai  died  on  

account of the said naked wire which had high voltage  

and was not  visible in  the dark.   The offence having  

been fully proved by the evidence on record, the High  

Court was not justified in reducing the sentence to 10  

days which was not just and fair.  Even if  liberal view  

on sentence of imprisonment was to be taken,  the High  

Court ought to have enhanced the sentence of fine and  

awarded a reasonable compensation as a condition for  

reduction of sentence.

8. We find force in the submission.  It is the duty of  

the Court to award just sentence to a convict against  

whom  charge  is  proved.   While  every  mitigating  or  

aggravating  circumstance  may  be  given  due  weight,  

mechanical reduction of sentence to the period already  

undergone cannot be appreciated.  Sentence has to be  

fair not only to the accused but also to the victim and  

4 4

Page 5

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5609 of 2013

the  society.   It  is  also  the  duty  of  the  court  to  duly  

consider  the  aspect  of  rehabilitating  the  victim.  

Unfortunately,  these  factors  are  missing  in  the  

impugned order. No cogent reason has been assigned  

for imposing only 10 days sentence when an innocent  

life  has  been  lost.   Award  of  unreasonable  

compensation has also not been considered. Apart from  

the sentence and fine/compensation to be paid by the  

accused, the Court has to award compensation by the  

State under Section 357A when the accused is not in a  

position to pay fair compensation as laid down by this  

Court  in  Suresh  vs. State  of  Haryana  (Criminal   

Appeal No.420 of 2012 decided on 28th November,  

2014).  This Court held :

“14.    We are of the view that it is the duty   of  the  Courts,  on  taking  cognizance  of  a   criminal  offence,  to  ascertain  whether   there  is  tangible  material  to  show  commission of crime, whether the victim is   identifiable and whether the victim of crime  needs immediate financial relief.  On being  satisfied  on  an  application  or  on  its  own  motion, the Court ought to direct grant of   interim  compensation,  subject  to  final   compensation  being  determined  later.   Such  duty  continues  at  every  stage  of  a  criminal case where compensation ought to   be  given  and  has  not  been  given,   irrespective  of  the  application  by  the   

5 5

Page 6

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5609 of 2013

victim.   At the stage of final hearing it is   obligatory  on  the  part  of  the  Court  to   advert to the provision and record a finding  whether a case for grant of compensation   has  been  made  out  and,  if  so,  who  is   entitled  to  compensation  and  how much.   Award  of  such  compensation  can  be  interim.   Gravity  of  offence  and  need  of   victim are some of the guiding factors to be   kept in mind, apart from such other factors   as may be found relevant in the facts and  circumstances  of  an individual  case.   We  are also of the view that there is need to   consider  upward  revision  in  the  scale  for   compensation  and  pending  such  consideration to adopt the scale notified by   the  State  of  Kerala  in  its  scheme,  unless   the  scale  awarded by any other  State  or   Union  Territory  is  higher.   The  States  of   Andhra  Pradesh,  Madhya  Pradesh,  Meghalaya and Telangana are directed to   notify their schemes within one month from  receipt  of  a  copy of  this  order.   We also   direct  that  a  copy  of  this  judgment  be   forwarded to National Judicial Academy so  that all judicial officers in the country can   be imparted requisite training to make the  provision operative and meaningful.”

9. As per  information furnished by learned counsel  

for the State, the accused Mehtaab has three sons and  

he owns 10-12 bighas of land and his annual income  

was  Rs.35-40,000/-.   Similarly  his  sons  were  earning  

Rs.25-30,000/- per annum.  The Court of Session has  

mentioned the age of the deceased to be thirty years at  

the  time  of  her  death  in  the  year  1997.   As  per  

instructions of learned counsel for the State, deceased  

6 6

Page 7

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5609 of 2013

is  survived  by  her  husband  Ram  Charan,  two  sons  

Bundel Singh and Suraj Lal and two daughters Durgesh  

Bai and Babita Bai.

10. As already observed, the respondent having been  

found guilty  of  causing  death  by  his  negligence,  the  

High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence of  

imprisonment  to  10  days  without  awarding  any  

compensation to the heirs of the deceased.  We are of  

the  view  that  in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  

case, the order of the High Court can be upheld only  

with  the  modification  that  the  accused  will  pay  

compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the heirs of the deceased  

within six months.  In default, he will undergo RI for six  

months.  The compensation of Rs.2 lakhs is being fixed  

having regard to the limited financial resources of the  

accused  but  the  said  compensation  may  not  be  

adequate  for  the  heirs  of  the  deceased.   In  such  

situation, in addition to the compensation to be paid by  

the  accused,  the  State  can  be  required  to  pay  

compensation under Section 357-A.  As per judgment of  

this Court in  Suresh (supra), the scheme adopted by  

7 7

Page 8

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5609 of 2013

the State of Kerala is applicable to all the States and  

the said scheme provides for compensation upto Rs.5  

lakhs in the case of death.  In the present case, it will  

be  appropriate,  in  the  interests  of  justice,  to  award  

interim compensation of Rs.3 lakhs under Section 357-A  

payable out of the funds available/to be made available  

by the State of Madhya Pradesh with the District Legal  

Services, Authority, Guna.  In case, the accused does  

not pay the compensation awarded as above, the State  

of  Madhya  Pradesh  will  pay  the  entire  amount  of  

compensation of Rs.5 lakhs within three months after  

expiry of the time granted to the accused.   

11. The  appeal  is  accordingly  allowed  to  the  above  

extent.

……..…………………………….J.   [T.S. THAKUR]

.….………………………………..J.         [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 13, 2015

8 8