Appeal for conviction under section 307 IPC instead of 325 IPC dismissed, finding no reason and respondents have already undergone imprisonment
January 28, 2018
A Bench of Supreme Court Judges, Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre dismissed the appeal filed in Subhash Chander Bansal v. Gian Chand and Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 1676 of 2009.
The facts of the case are five accused persons were prosecuted under Sections
307/325/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code,1908 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). The Trial Court, by order dated 14.11.1998
acquitted all the five accused persons.
The State, being aggrieved by the order of acquitting the respondents, filed
criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No.494-DB of 1999 before the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana whereas the complainant filed a Criminal Revision No. 174 of
1999 against the order of the acquittal.
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 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 The court said that 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.
The Supreme court opined that the High Court was right and hence the impugned
judgment does not call for any interference.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.
The court dismissed the appeal.
Tweet
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in Subhash Chander Bansal v. Gian Chand & Ors dated 25.1.2018