NABI BUX & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 316 · Decided: 05-11-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

316 
NABI BUX & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
November 5, 1971 
[A. N. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] 
Sentence-Enhanced by High Court under s. 423 (IA) Code of f::ri· 
minal Procedure, 1898-This Court in appeal will not interfere unloss sen· 
tence is shown to be unjust or harsh. 
For an offence under s. 325 read with s. 34 of the Indian Peaal Code 
the appellants w~re sentenced by the Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for six months each, apart from fine. 
The High Court in 
exercise of powers -under s. 423 (IA) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
enhanced . the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years 
On the 
question whether this Court should, in the circumstances of the case, inter· 
fore with the order of the High Court enhancing the sentence, 
HELD : It could not be said tha( the High Court was not instilled in 
holding that in view of the severity of the injuries cause<! to one of the 
victims the sentence passed by the trial court was lenient. It would be 
wrong to in1trfere with the sentence pa8sed by the High Court when it was 
not shown to be unjust or harsh. {317 BJ 
Surta & Ors. v. State of Haryana. C.A. No. 225170 dt. 12-2·1971, 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION 
Criminal Appeal 
No. 63 of 1971. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
E 
December 10, 1970 of llhe Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore 
Bench in Cr. Appeal No. 94 of 1970. 
Nur-ud-din Ahmed and U. P. Singh, for the appellants. 
R. P. Kapur for I. N. Shroff for the respondept. 
The Judgment of the ('.ourt was delivered by 
Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave limited only to the 
question whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the 
sentences. 
The appellants Nabi Bux, Noor Mohammad and Ismail Khan 
were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh on charges 
under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 
for att!lmpting to commit the murder of Bapu in furtherance of 
their common intention and also under section 325 read with 
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to 
Chunia in furtherance of their common intention. 
The appellants 
were acquitted on the charge under section 307 /34 of the Indian 
Penal Code. 
They were convicted on two charges under section 
325 /34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
NAB! BUX v. M. P, STATE (Ray, J.) 
317 
Bapu and Chunia. 
They were sentenced to undergo imprison-
ment for six months each and a fine of Rs. 500 /- each with six 
months rigorous imprisonment in default. 
The High Court on appeal maintained the conviction and in 
exercise of powers under section 423(1A) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two 
years. 
The High Court said that the learned trial Judge had 
taken a lenient view in awarding the sentences to the appellants. 
Bapu who was one of the victims sustained three fractures on his 
left temporal, parietal and occipital bones and totally lost his power 
of speech. 
The High Court said that for such serious offences 
committed by the appellants they were awarded a sentence of six 
months rigorous imprisonment only by the ]earned trial Judge. 
Counsel for the appellants submitted that by the end of the 
month of October, 1971 the appellants would have served sentence 
for 10 months and this Court in the facts and circumstances of the 
case would reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. 
The High Court in considering the question of sentence exer-
cised powers with reference to the facts and circumstances of the 
case. 
The exercise of this power cannot be said to suffer from 
any infirmity or lack of appr>~ciation of facts. Nor can it be said 
that the High Court was not justified in observing that the sentence 
passed by the trial court was lenient in the circumstances of the case. 
It would be wrong to interfere with the sentence passed by the 
High Court. Any interference has to be supported by rules and 
principles in the administration of justice. 
The ruling of this 
Court on the question of sentence in the recent decision in Surra 
& Ors. v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 1970 
decided on 12 February, 1971) is as follows :-
"This Court interferes with sentence only when it is 
established that the sentence is harsh or unjust in the 
facts and circumstances of the case. 
Sometimes consi-
deration of age has also occasioned interferenc

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