SUBHASH CHANDER BANSAL versus GIAN CHAND AND ORS

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 267 · Decided: 25-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
267
SUBHASH CHANDER BANSAL
v.
GIAN CHAND AND ORS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1676 of  2009)
JANUARY 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.325/34 – Prosecution case was that
respondents-accused caused injuries to two persons with hockey –
Trial court acquitted all the five accused persons – High Court
allowed the State’s appeal in part and convicted the four accused
persons under s.325 r/w s.34, imposing the sentence that was already
undergone by them and  fine of Rs.50,000 to be paid equally by the
four convicted accused persons – Acquittal of one accused was
upheld by giving him benefit of doubt – Held: The finding of the
High Court regarding conviction of respondents under s.325 was
based on proper appreciation of entire prosecution evidence – As
regards the sentence, High Court was of the opinion that the
respondents have already undergone some reasonable length of
jail sentence as under-trials and the same was sufficient, more so
since in addition, a fine of Rs.50,000/- was also awarded – No
reason to take a different view from that of the High Court – The
injured were duly compensated with the fine of Rs.50,000/-  –
Interference with impugned order not called for.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the first place, the High Court convicted four
accused persons under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC and
not under Section 307 IPC. This finding of the High Court is
based on proper appreciation of entire prosecution evidence and
there is no find any reason to disturb it for convicting the
respondents under Section 325 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.
[Paras 10, 11][270-C, D]
2. So far as the awarding of sentence for an offence
punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is
concerned, the High Court was of the opinion that the respondents
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 267
267
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
have already undergone some reasonable length of jail sentence
as under-trials and the same appears to be sufficient. The incident
in question occurred as far back as in 1988.  30 years have elapsed.
Secondly, in the meantime, one injured also expired. Thirdly, the
injured were duly compensated with the amount of fine of
Rs.50,000/-. The quantum of fine awarded in 1988 or so appears
to be just and reasonable. Moreover, it is the sole discretion of
the Trial Court and, in this case, the High Court to decide the
quantum of fine amount. There is no reason to take a different
view from that of the High Court, which does not call for any
interference in this appeal. [Paras 12-15][270-E-H; 271-A]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1676 of 2009.
From the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 04.05.2007
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl.
Revision No.174 of 1999.
 Ms. Shalu Sharma, Adv. for the Appellant.
Benant Noor Singh Marok, Satish Goel, Mushtaq Ahmad, Dr.
Kailash Chand, Kuldip Singh, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the
Complainant against the final judgment and order dated 04.05.2007 passed
by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Revision No. 174 of 1999 by which the High Court dismissed the criminal
revision filed by the appellant herein.
2. In order to dispose of the appeal, few relevant facts need
mention hereinbelow.
3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (five accused persons) were prosecuted
under Sections 307/325/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code,1908
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) for causing injuries to two persons
namely, Om Prakash and Ravinder Kumar, with Hockey at around 7.15
p.m. on 29.07.1988.  The prosecution was initiated against the respondents
on the basis of  FIR No. 128 dated 03.08.1988 lodged by the appellant
herein, who is the son of Om Prakash (since dead).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
269
4. The Trial Court, by order dated 14.11.1998 acquitted all the
five accused persons (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein).
5. The State, being aggrieved by the order of acquitting the
respondents, filed criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No.494-DB of
1999 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereas the
complainant filed a Criminal Revision No. 174 of 1999 against the order
of the acquittal.
6. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the State’s
appeal in part and convicted the four accused persons namely, Gian
Chand, Krishan Kumar, Lachhman Dass and Bhagw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.