GEORGE PON PAUL versus KANAGALET & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 29-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 330 
A 
GEORGE PON PAUL 
v. 
KANAGALET & ORS. 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 72"73 of 2003 · 
B 
APRIL 29, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 326 and 452 - Conviction under 
~ 
c 
- Imposition of custodial sentence of confinement till rising of 
court and fine with default stipulation - High Court enhancing 
the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine 
-
On appeal held: Accused has deposited the fine amount 
and victim has been paid the amount as directed - Also there 
has been lapse of long time - Hence, period of sentence 
D restricted to the period already undergone. 
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTLON: CriminalAppeal 
Nos. 72-73 of 2003 
From the Judgement and Order dated 24.01.2002 of the 
E Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal R.C. 
Nos. 935 of 1999, No. 1786 of 1999 and 1048 of 2001. 
C. Paramasivam. P. Ramesh, Rakesh K. Sharma, for the 
Appellant. 
.} . 
F 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the 
G revision petition filed by the present respondent nos. 1 and 2 
while dismissing the revision petition filed by the present 
appellant. The High Court was of the view that for the offence 
,lo;,, 
punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 
(in short 'IPC') only the fine was imposed and therefore 
H 
330 
GEORGE PON PAUL V. KANAGALET & ORS. 
331 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
' "' 
sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for A 
two years in addition to the fine imposed. 
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial was that on 
7.1.1993 at about 2.45 P.M. three accused persons trespassed 
into the house of respondent No. 1 (PW1) and attacked her 
B 
husband respondent No. 2 (PW2). While the said attack was 
restrained by PW1., they attacked her also with Vettu Kathi and 
other weapons and caused injuries to both of them. All the three 
-t 
accused were tried for commission of offence punishable under 
Sections 452, 326, 324 and 3251PC. The trial court directed 
·acquittal of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 while convicting the present c 
appellant for the offences punishable under Section 326 and 
452 IPC. The present appellant challenging the said conviction 
filed an appeal before the Appellate Court which confirmed the 
conviction, and sentence imposed i.e. confinement till rising of 
-
court and fine with default stipulation. Aggrieved by the same, D 
~ 
~ 
the present appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 1048 of 2001 
before the Madras High Court. Immediately after the conviction 
was recorded both the victims Pws 1 and 2 filed a criminal 
revision petition No. 935/1999 before the High Court challenging 
the acquittal in respect of the charges as against A2 and A3 E 
t 
and to enhance the sentence imposed upon A 1 for both the 
offence as the sentence imposed was not adequate. 
~ 
Both the revision petitions were taken up and disposed of 
by a common judgment. The High Court found that the acquittal 
F 
of A2 and A3 does not suffer from any infirmity. It noted that in 
view of the specific provisions relating to imposition of custodial 
sentence, the trial court could not have imposed only fine. The 
High Court found no merit in the revision petition filed by the 
appellant questioning his conviction but held that in view of 
.... 
provisions of Section 326, custodial sentence has to be there . G 
_,.;;!# 
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction the sentence was 
enhanced. Sections 326 and 452 reads as follows : 
326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous 
weapons or means -
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, 
" 
voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument 
for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, 
used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or 
by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of 
B 
any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of 
any explosive substance, or by means of any substance 
which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to 
swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any 
t-
animal, shall be punished with 152 [imprisonment for life], 
c 
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which 
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
452. House-trespass af
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.