(2009) 1 S.C.R. 331
·"
KALIBEN RABARI
A
'
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 2009)
1
MARCH 27, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGUL Y, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part I) and (Part II) - Order
of High Court altering conviction from s. 304 (Part I) to s. 304 c
(Part II) and sentence from ten years to two and half years -
Also reduction of compensation from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3
lakhs - Challenge to - Held: When custodial sentence was
substantially reduced, there was no basis for reducing
compensation as awarded from Rs. 5 /akhs to Rs. 3 /akhs -
D
Also reasons were not indicated to justify reduction - Thus,
quantum of compensation enhanced to Rs. 5 lakhs - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 357.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
E
-~
No. 571 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.03.2007 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.1290/
2005.
~
F
Shanker Divate for the Appellant.
Hemantika Wahi, K. Enatoli Serna, Meenakshi Arora, S.
Gupta, Mohit 0. Ram and P. Kataki, for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The only question of importance which is raised by the
331
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 5 S.C.R.
A learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court while
reducing the sentence from 10 years to two and half years in
respect of offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part I to 304 Part
II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) also
reduced compensation from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. Learned
B counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no basis for
such reduction after the custodial period was substantially
reduced. The High Court in fact refused to extend the benefits
of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 (in short the Probation
Act) to the accused persons. By applying the parameters of
c Sec.357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,(in short the
'Code'), the trial Court had fixed the quantum of compensation
of Rs.5 lakhs. Learned counsel for the accused respondent
supported the judgment of the High Court.
3. We find that in a case of this nature where the High Court
D has altered conviction from Section 304 Part I to 304 Part II IPC
and has considerably reduced the period of custodial sentence,
there was no basis for reducing the compensation as awarded,
i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. No reason has been indicated
to justify the reduction. Accordingly, we enhance the quantum
E of compensation to Rs. 5 lakhs. The balance of amount, if any,
required to be deposited shall be so done within a period of
four weeks from today.
4. The appeal is disposed of.
F N.J.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex