1

           REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2009

Subhash Chander Bansal ... Appellant

Versus

Gian Chand and Ors. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the Complainant against

the  final  judgment  and  order  dated  04.05.2007

passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at

Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 174 of 1999 by

which  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  criminal

revision filed by the appellant herein.

2

2. In order to dispose of the appeal, few relevant

facts need mention hereinbelow.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (five accused persons)

were prosecuted under Sections 307/325/148/149

of the Indian Penal Code,1908 (hereinafter referred

to  as  ‘IPC’)  for  causing  injuries  to  two  persons

namely,  Om  Prakash  and  Ravinder  Kumar,  with

Hockey at around 7.15 p.m. on 29.07.1988.  The

prosecution was initiated against  the  respondents

on  the  basis  of   FIR  No.  128  dated  03.08.1988

lodged by the appellant herein, who is the son of

Om Prakash (since dead).

4. The  Trial  Court,  by  order  dated  14.11.1998

acquitted all the five accused persons (respondent

Nos. 1 to 5 herein).

5. The  State,  being  aggrieved  by  the  order  of

acquitting  the  respondents,  filed  criminal  appeal

being  Criminal  Appeal  No.494-DB  of  1999  before

3

the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereas the

complainant  filed  a  Criminal  Revision  No.  174  of

1999 against the order of the acquittal.  

6. The High Court,  by the impugned judgment,

allowed the State's appeal in part and convicted the

four accused persons namely, Gian Chand, Krishan

Kumar,  Lachhman  Dass  and  Bhagwan  Dass

(respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5) under Section 325

read with Section 34 IPC and upheld the acquittal of

one  accused  person,  namely,  Suresh  Kumar  -

respondent  No.  4  by  giving  him benefit  of  doubt.

The operative  part of  judgment of  the High Court

reads as under:  

“In the above circumstances, acquittal of  the  respondents  cannot  be  justified. However,  having  regard  to  the  submission made on behalf of Suresh Kumar, we consider it safe to give him benefit of doubt and acquit him but we do not find any valid ground to uphold acquittal of other accused.

Accordingly  we  convict  accused  Gian Chand, Krishan Kumar, Lachhman Dass and Bhagwan Dass under sections 325/34 IPC but having regard to long lapse of time since the

4

date  of  occurrence,  we  award  sentence  for the  period  of  imprisonment  already undergone  by  them,  apart  from  awarding compensation  of  Rs.50,000/-  to  be  shared equally  by  PW3 Subhash  Chander  and  PW4 Virender Kumar.    It has been noticed that Om Parkash, injured has already died.  The four convicted accused will pay Rs.12,500/- each.  …………….”  

7. The  complainant,  being  aggrieved  by  the

judgment of the High Court, has filed this appeal by

way of special leave in this Court. The State has not

filed any appeal.

8. Therefore,  the  short  question  that  arises  for

consideration  in  this  appeal  is  whether  the  High

Court  having  convicted  the  four  accused  persons

under  Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC was

justified in imposing the sentence that was already

undergone  by  them  and  by  imposing  a  fine  of

Rs.50,000/- to be paid equally by the four convicted

accused persons.

5

9. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

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

find no merit  in  the  appeal.   In our  opinion,  the

High  Court  was  right  and  hence  the  impugned

judgment does not call for any interference.

10. In  the  first  place,  the  High  Court  convicted

four accused persons under Section 325 read with

section 34 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. In

other words, in the opinion of the High Court, no

case was made out under Section 307 IPC, but it

was essentially  a case  of  a  "grievous hurt"  falling

under Section 325 IPC.  

11. This finding of the High Court, in our opinion,

is  based  on  proper  appreciation  of  entire

prosecution evidence and we do not find any reason

to disturb it  for convicting the respondents under

Section 325 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.

6

12. So  far  as  the  awarding  of  sentence  for  an

offence  punishable  under  Section  325  read  with

Section 34 IPC is concerned, the High Court was of

the  opinion  that  the  respondents  have  already

undergone some reasonable length of jail sentence

as  under-trials  and  the  same,  in  our  opinion,

appears to be sufficient.  It is more so because, in

addition, a fine of  Rs.50,000/- was also awarded.

This would meet the ends of justice.

13. Having examined this issue, we find no reason

to  interfere  on  this  issue  too  for  the  following

reasons.  

14. Firstly, the incident in question occurred as far

back as in 1988, whereas we are now in 2018. In

between  this  period,  30  years  have  elapsed.

Secondly,  in  the  meantime,  one  injured  also

expired. Thirdly, the injured were duly compensated

with  the  amount  of  fine  of  Rs.50,000/-.  The

7

quantum of fine awarded in 1988 or so appears to

be  just  and  reasonable.  Moreover,  it  is  the  sole

discretion of the Trial Court and, in this case,  the

High Court to decide the quantum of fine amount.

15. Taking into account all these facts, which have

emerged  from  the  facts  of  the  case,  we  find  no

reason to take a different view from that of the High

Court,  which does not call  for any interference in

this appeal.

16. The  appeal  thus  fails  and  is  accordingly

dismissed.

………………………………..J (R.K. Agrawal)

………………………………J. (Abhay Manohar Sapre)

New Delhi, January 25, 2018