HARIBHAU versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 04-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
HARIBHAU
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of  2018)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2018
         [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing:
Conviction u/ss. 353, 504 and 294 r/w s. 34 IPC by courts
below – Sentence of 3 months R1 and fine of Rs. 800/- imposed –
On appeal, plea of accused to reduce the sentence – Held: In view
of the facts that imprisonment of one month was already undergone,
that incident occurred on spur of moments, that accused had no
criminal antecedent, that the incident was quite old and that the
accused was not required in any other criminal case, sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone – Instead fine amount is
enhanced to Rs. 15000/- from  Rs. 800/- – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss. 353/34, 504/34 and 294/34.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1. Taking into account that the appellant has already
undergone one month’s  jail sentence out of three months awarded
to him; the fact that the incident in question is quite old and seems
to have occurred at the spur of the moment, the appellant has no
criminal antecedent in his past life and that he is not required in
any other criminal case except the one in question which the
appellant fairly did not deny having committed  and rightly did
not challenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and proper
to alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from three
months to the extent of period of one month which was already
undergone by him and instead enhance the total fine amount
awarded under different Sections from Rs.800/- to Rs.15,000/-.
[Para 14] [625-C-E]
2. Failure to deposit the fine amount within one month would
result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below
  [2018] 10 S.C.R. 622
622
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
623
and the appellant will have to then undergo the remaining jail
sentence awarded by the Courts below.  [Para 17] [625-G-H]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal
No. 1118 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal
No. 258 of 2006.
Shakul  R. Ghatole, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
20.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2006 whereby the High Court while
allowing the appeal with respect to other accused- Babarao Shriram
Chaudhary dismissed the appeal with respect to the appellant herein and
confirmed his conviction and sentence awarded to him by order dated
10.04.2006 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim
in Atrocities Case No.28 of 2005 by which the appellant and Babarao
had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 294
and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC”) and had directed them to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.500/-  under Section 353/
34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs.200/-
under Section 504/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month
with fine of Rs.100/- under Section 294/34 IPC.  All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that Bala Saheb Ingole
(PW-1) was serving as a teacher in Zilla Parishad Primary School at
Januna, Tahsil Karanja District Washim (MH). On 05.04.2005, the
appellant (Haribhau) and Babarao, who were Sarpanch and Member of
the Gram Panchayat, Januna respectively visited the School and asked
Bala Saheb as to why he came late in the School. Bala Saheb offered
his explanation.
HARIBHAU v.  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
4. The explanation offered by Bala Saheb did not satisfy the
appellant and Babarao, therefore, they asked Bala Saheb for book of
circle-in-charge maintained by the School. Since Bala Saheb did not
give the book, the appellant (Haribhau) caught hold of his shirt’s collar
and while using abusive language gave kicks and blows to him. They
also gave threat to Bala Saheb for causing injuries endangering his life.
5. It is this incident which gave rise to lodging of FIR which was
followed by the prosecution of the appellant (Haribhau) and Babarao
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.