SURENDRAN versus SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 171 · Decided: 30-06-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN, VINEET SARAN, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
171
SURENDRAN
v.
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 2021)
JUNE 30, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, VINEET SARAN AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Sentence / Sentencing – Trial Court (Magistrate) convicted
appellant u/ss.279, 338 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for
six months and fine of Rs.500/- u/s.337 IPC – Conviction upheld by
Sessions Judge and High Court – Appellant, however, was on bail
all throughout – Appeal before Supreme Court – Question of sentence
– Plea of appellant  that he was sole earning member of a poor
family consisting of four children and his wife; and if he was sent to
jail after so many years, he will suffer irreparable injury – Held:
Conviction of appellant affirmed – However, on facts, specially the
fact that 26 years had elapsed from the date of commission of offence,
six months sentence u/ss. 279 and 338 IPC substituted by fine of
Rs.1000/- each whereas fine u/s.337 IPC maintained – Penal Code,
1860 – ss. 279, 337 and 338.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: There is no error in conviction recorded by the Trial
Court. The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking
to the facts and circumstances of the present case specially the
fact that 26 years have elapsed from the incident, this Court is
inclined to substitute the sentence of six months imprisonment
under Section 279 and 338 IPC into fine. Six months sentence
under Section 279 and 338 IPC are substituted by fine of Rs.1000/
- each whereas sentence of fine under Section 337 IPC is
maintained. [Para 11][174-A-B]
Prakash Chandra Agnihotri v. State of M.P. (1990)
Supp. SCC 764 - distinguished.
A.P Raju v. State of Orissa 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 385 -
referred to.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 171
171
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 385
referred to
Para 7
(1990) Supp. SCC 764
distinguished
Para 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
536 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2015 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2525 of 2003.
P.A. Noor Muhamed, Ms. Giffara S., Bilal Niamathulla, Ms.
Ruxana P.N., Advs. for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High
Court dated 01.09.2015 dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the
appellant challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 279, 337
and 338 IPC.
3. The appellant, a bus driver, while driving bus No.KL7D 4770
caused an accident on 16.02.1995 in which car driver of KL 10B 5634
was injured. The appellant was charged with offence under Sections 279,
337 and 338 IPC. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate vide his
judgment dated 28.04.1999 convicted the accused under Section 279
IPC and 338 IPC and sentence him to undergo six months imprisonment
and fine of Rs.500/- was imposed, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month under Section 337 IPC.
4. An appeal was filed by the appellant which was dismissed by the
learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 29.05.2003. Criminal Revision
was filed in the High Court challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge which Criminal Revision petition has been dismissed by the High
Court vide the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2015.
5. This Court on 01.08.2016 issued notice only on the question of
sentence. Service of notice is complete but no one has appeared for
respondent.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is
sole bread earning member of a poor family consisting of four children
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
173
and his wife. It is submitted that the appellant if sent to jail after more
than 21 years, will suffer irreparable injury.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on
judgment of this Court in A.P. Raju versus State of Orissa, 1995
Supp.(2) SCC 385 and Prakash Chandra Agnihotri versus State of
M.P., (1990) Supp. SCC 764.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant and have perused the record.
9. The judgment of this Court in Prakash Chandra Agnihotri
(Supra) as relied by learned counsel for the appellant does support his
submissions. In the above case, the accused was convicted and sentenced
for six months under Section 304A. This Court converted the sentence of
imprisonment into fine of Rs.500/-. The Court was of the view that it
would be harsh to send the appellant to the Jail after 18 years of the
occurrence. Following
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.