HARENDRA RAI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 01-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
HARENDRA RAI
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1726 of 2015)
SEPTEMBER 01, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA AND 
VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: In a murder case, the acquittal of respondent 
no.2 recorded by Trial Court and the High Court having been reversed 
and respondent no.2 having being convicted u/ss.302 and 307 IPC by the 
Supreme Court by an earlier judgment, now the issue for consideration was 
the sentence to be imposed upon respondent no.2. 
Sentence / Sentencing – Murder – Conviction vide earlier judgment 
([2023] 11 S.C.R. 403) – Death sentence not appropriate on facts, and 
as such imprisonment for life awarded alongwith fi ne – However, fi ne 
awarded to be paid as damages – Also, compensation awarded u/s.357-A 
CrPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 357(c) and 357A – Penal 
Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 307.
HELD: Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 
also taking into consideration the fact that the incident is of the year 1995, 
almost 28 years old, awarding death sentence would not be appropriate and 
as such imprisonment for life is awarded to respondent no.2 under Section 
302 IPC along with fi ne of Rs.20 lacs. Further, respondent no.2 is awarded 
7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC along with fi ne of 
Rs.5 lacs. Both the sentences to run concurrently. Section 357 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that whenever fi ne is imposed as a 
sentence, the Court may while passing the judgment, order the whole or in 
part of the fi ne recovered to be applied as per clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section 
(1) thereof. Clause (a) provides for defraying the expenses incurred in the 
prosecution. This Court is not inclined to grant any such expenses to the State 
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 583 : 2023 INSC 806
583
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
considering the fact that the State in fact did not prosecute the case fairly, 
rather throughout assisted the accused. Clause (b) and (d) also will have 
no CrPC application, however, under clause (c) considering the conduct of 
respondent no.2, further the mental, physical, and fi nancial damages suff ered 
by the victim’s family, the two deceased and the injured, the fi ne awarded be 
paid as damages. Considering the conduct of the State and also the amount 
of trauma and harassment faced by the victim’s family, in addition to the 
damages awarded under section 357 CrPC further compensation be awarded 
under section 357-A CrPC. [Paras 5, 6 and 7]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1726 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2011 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Patna in CRRP No.1345 of 2009.
Appearances:
Abhay Kumar, Shagun Ruhil, Rajat Khattry, Ms. Kusum Pandey, 
Saurabh Mishra, Ms. Neetu Jain Gautam, Ms. Neetu Jain, Ms. Anamika, 
Advs. for the Appellant.
R. Basant, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Devashish Bharuka, 
Ms. Sarvshree, Shobhit Dvivedi, Ms. Swati Mishra, Neeraj Shekhar, Sunny 
Choudhary, Manoj Kumar, Ms. Nishi Kashyap, Shashi Bhushan Singh, 
Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The acquittal of respondent no.2 recorded by the Trial Court and 
the High Court was reversed vide judgment dated August 18, 2023 and 
respondent no.2 was convicted under Section 302 and 307 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 18601. By the same order it was directed to take respondent 
1 
IPC
585
no.2 into custody and produce him today in Court for being heard on 
sentence. 
2. Crl.M.P.No.169246 of 2023 was fi led by respondent no.2 with a 
prayer to permit him to appear virtually considering his health conditions 
and that he was already undergoing life sentence in another murder case. 
Crl.M.P. is allowed. Respondent no.2 is present virtually from jail and is 
duly represented by his counsel. 
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fi ndings 
recorded by us and also taking into consideration the fact that the incident is 
of the year 1995, almost 28 years old, awarding death sentence would not be 
appropriate and as such we award imprisonment for life to respondent no.2 
under Section 302 IPC along with fi ne of Rs.20 lacs. Further, respondent 
no.2 is awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC along 
with fi ne of Rs.5 lacs. Distribution of fi ne wil

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.