MANGAL SINGH & ANR. versus KISHAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 21-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 505 
'\ '-1 
· MANGAL SINGH & ANR. 
A 
v. 
KISHAN SINGH & ORS. 
[Criminal Appeal No.1858 of 2008] 
NOVEMBER 21, 2008 . 
B 
)· 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss.307 and 326 -High Court converting conviction from c 
s.307 to s.326 and substituting custodial sentence with fines 
- Held: It will be a grave mistake to assume that delay in trial 
does not cause acute suffering and anguish to victim of crime 
and that, as arule, all offences falling u/s 326 would be less 
serious than those falling uls 307 and would consequently · D 
attract lighter sentence ..:... In the instant case, from the injuries 
.+-
suffered by victim, it is evident that though the accused did 
not intend to kill him, they surely wanted to leave him crippled 
for the rest of his life ~ Therefore, alteration of conviction by 
High Court cannot be said -fb be unjustified - But,- the· High 
E 
Court erred in waiving off the custodial sentence - Both the 
accused must serve rigorous imprisonment for two years ·in 
addition to a fine of Rs. 35001~ each :.... Sentencing - Balancing 
the factors of delay in trial and injuries caused to victim. 
> 
"( 
F 
The complainant and the injured victim filed· the 
instant appeal challenging the judgment and order of the 
High Court acquitting one of the three accused convicted 
by the trial court ofthe charge u/s 307 IPC, converting the 
conviction -of the remaining two accused from s.307 ·to 
G 
~ 
326' IPC and reducing the·ir· sentence from five years 
rigorous imprisonment, as awarded by the-friat court, to 
the period already undergone which· was 4 months· and 
505 
H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A 3 months respectively, and in lieu of imprisonment 
~ ,(, 
imposing a fine of Rs.3500/- on each of the two accused. 
The question for consideration before the Court was as 
to whether the High Court. was justified in altering the 
conviction of respondents 1 and 3 from s./3'07 to s.326 
B IPC and reducing their sentence to fines only. In so far 
as th.e. acquittal of. respondent no.2 was ccmcerned, :the 
'f 
Court observed that the judgment of the High Court 
called for no interference. 
.. 
c 
, . Partly allowing the appeal, the Court· 
. ' HELD: 1. The injury· rep_ort shows that all the injuries 
.. 
' 
. 
• 
f 
. 
• 
• 
• 
' 
•• 
inflicted on the victim .were either on his legs or arms. 
Indeed.a number of injuries were q'uite grievous but the 
D accused .• while assaulting' their victim ruthlessly, were 
careful not to give any blow o.n any vital part of the body 
apparently to make sure that it would not lead to his death. 
The. Doctor. in his stateme.nt before the court did not say· 
+ 
that the injuries were s~fficfont in the ordinary course of 
E nature to cause death. Having regard to the evidence on 
record, the a!teration of the r~spondentS' conviction by 
the High. Court from s.307 to s.326 cannot be said to be 
wrong and unjustified. [Paras 10 and 11] [511-B-D] 
F 
2.1. As regards the sentence; the High Court has 
~rred in balancing the relevant factors. AnY inordinate 
.,,.... 
Ao' 
delay in conclusion ot' a criminai .trial undoubtedly has 
highly deleterious effect on the society generally and 
particularly on the two sides to the case. But it will be a 
G grave mistake to assume that delay in trial does not cause 
a~,u~~ suJferi~g and ang~ish ti? the victim' of the offen~e., 
There is, therefore no reason. Jo give· ali the benefits on 
-~ 
accoun't of' the delay 'in trial to the accused a'nd to 
completely deny justice to the. victim of the offence. In the 
H instant case, there is nothing to indicate that the 
MANGAL SINGH & ANR. v. KISHAN SINGH & ORS. 
501 
~ ~ 
appellants or the prosecution were responsible for the 
A 
delay in trial. Similarly, it is a mistake to think that, as a 
rule, all offences falling u/s 326 IPC would be less serious 
than the offences falling u/s 307 IPC and would 
consequently attract lighter sentence. From the injuries 
suffered by the victim, it is evident that though the 
8 
)--
respondents did not intend to kill him altogether, they 
surely wanted to leave him crippled for a lifetime. [Paras 
13, 12 and 14] [512-8-D-E-F-G-H] 
2.2. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by the c 
victim, the senten·ce of rigorous imprisonment is restored 
and it is directed that respondents 1 and 3 must serve 
rigorous imprisonment for two years· in addition to the 
fine of Rs.3,500/- imposed by High ·Court. On realisa

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