NASIB HUSSAIN SIDDI AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 28-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 11 S.C.R. 627 
NASIB HUSSAIN SIDDI AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1879 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 
[CYRIAC JOSEPH AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 325, 506(2), 333, 342 and 114 - Conviction under -
c 
Quarrel between appellant no. 1. and another person -
Constable-complainant ordered them to accompany him to 
police station - Appellant no. 1 caught hold of complainant and 
pushed him - Appellant 2 and 3, the mother and wife of 
appellant no.1 joined appellant no: 1, exchanged hot words 0 
with complainant and prevented him from taking appellant 
no. 1 to police station - Conviction of appellants - High Court 
affirmed the conviction, however, reduced sentence to 1 U 
years - On appeal, held: Two of the appellants were females 
and had not physically assaulted the complainant - Even 
appellant no. 1 was not alleged to have used any force against E 
the complainant in the incident - The incident took place 
nearly ten years back - Keeping in view all the circumstances 
and the fact that appellant no. 1 who was mainly responsible 
for the grievous injury caused to the complainant has already 
served the sentence awarded to him, interest of justice would F 
be sufficiently served if the sentence awarded to the appellants 
is modified and reduced to the sentence already undergone 
by them. 
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICITION : Criminai Appeal G 
No. 1879 of 2011. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2011 of the 
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Criminal Appeal No. 
315 of 2007. 
627 
H 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
D.N. Ray, Lokesh K. Choudhary and Sumita Ray for the 
Appellants. 
Hemantika Wahi and Jesal for the Appellant. 
B 
The order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High 
C 
Court of Gujarat at Atimedabad whereby conviction of the 
appellants for offences punishable under Sections 325, 506(2), 
333, 342 and 114 IPC has been affirmed and the sentence 
reduced to imprisonment for a period of 1 Y2 years. 
o 
3. When the special leave petition came up for admission, 
this Court by its order dated 1st August, 2011 issued notice to 
the respondents only on the question of sentence. We are not, 
therefore, examining the validity of the order of conviction which 
both the Courts below have passed on a proper appreciation 
E 
of the evidence on record. The only question on which we have 
heard learned counsel for the parties is whether the sentence 
awarded to the appellants needs to be reduced and, if so, to 
what extent. 
4. The genesis of the case of the appellants lies in an 
F 
incident that took place on 7th September, 2003 at village 
Chitrod in the District of Kutch, State of Gujarat. The 
complainant in the case was, during the relevant period, a 
Constable posted at Chitrod outpost of Police Station 
Bhimasar. The prosecution case is that at about 10.30 a.m. on 
G 7th September, 2003 when the complainant was on patrol duty, 
he found one Babubhai quarrelling in public place with one 
Hussain Ibrahim Siddi, accused no.1. The constable appears 
to have accosted the quarrelling duo and asked them as to why 
they were disturbing peace and ordered them to accompany 
H 
NASIB HUSSAIN SIDDI AND ORS. v. STATE OF 
629 
GUJARAT [T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
him to the police station. This appears to have infuriated A 
Hussain Ibrahim Siddi who caught hold of the Constable from 
his collar and pushed him. In the meantime the sqn, wife and 
mother of Hussain Ibrahim Siddi also appear to have joined 
Hussain Ibrahim Siddi, exchanged hot words with constable 
and prevented him from taking Hussain Ibrahim Siddi to the 8 
Police Station. It was on those allegations that Hussain Ibrahim 
and the appellants were tried together for the offences 
mentioned earlier. 
5. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 
witnesses to support its case. The depositions of these C 
witnesses were found reliable by the Trial Court resulting in the 
conviction of Hussain Ibrahim for the offence punishable under 
Section 325 and sentence of five years RI besides a fine of 
Rs.500/-. In default he was directed to undergo a further 
sentence of six months. He was also convicted under Section D 
506(2) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 
a period of five years and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to 
undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. 
Hussain Ibra

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