THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus TRIBHUWAN & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l 1 S.C.R. I 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
TRIBHUWAN & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2437 of2010) 
NOVEMBER 06, 2017 
(R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.( 
A 
B 
Sentence/Sentencing - Conviction under s.325 !PC - lf 
accused is held guilty of commission of offence under s.325. 
C 
imposition of jail sentence and fine on accused is mandatory -
In 
the instant case. High Court was not right in setting aside the entire 
jail sentence of respondent No. 1 while upholding his conviction 
under s.325 !PC - High Court ought to have either upheld the 
award of jail sentence offour years awarded by the Sessions Court 
D 
or reduce the jail sentence to any reasonable term bui it had no 
jurisdiction to jitlly set aside the jail sentence and substitute it by 
imposing on(v fine of Rs. I0,0001- - In view ~f time consumed in the 
litigation (37 years) coupled with the findings of two courts below 
that respondent No. I did not cause any injmy to /he deceased and 
injured (PW-2). respondent No.Is conviction under s.325 !PC is 
E 
upheld and punishment ~l imprisonment of 40 days with fine of 
Rs.10,0001- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month 
rigorous imprisonment is awarded - Penal Code, 1860 - s.325 -
Code of Criminal Procedure. I 973 - s.428. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, !973 - s.428 - Scope of- Held: 
s.428 provides that the period of detention spent in jail as under-
triul or as convict will be set off against his total jail sentence once 
awarded lo him in connection with the same offence - Jn the instant 
case, the period already undergone by respondent No. I (40 days) 
while he was in detention, as under-trial and as convict. was also a 
jail sentence and could be treated as jail sentence once awarded to 
respondent no. I under s.325 !PC. and acco,·dingly its benefit by 
way of set off could be given to him under s.428 of Code - Penal 
Code. 1860 - s.325. 
F 
G 
H 
2 
SUPRBME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] l l S.C.R. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HELD: l., So far as Scction 325 IPC is concerned, its reading 
would show that once the accused is held guilty of commission of 
offence punishuble under Section 325 IPC, then imposition of jail 
sentence and fine on the accused is mandatory. ln other words, 
the award of p1unishment would include both, i.e., jail sentence 
and line. So far as jail sentence is concerned, it may extend upto 
7 years as per Court's discretion whereas so far as fine amount is 
concerned, its quantum would also depend upon the Court's 
discretion. So f$r as Section 428 of Code is concerned, it provides 
that the period of detention spent in jail as under-trial or as convict 
will be set off against his total jail sentence once awarded to him 
in connection with the same offence. [Paras 22, 23](10-C-D] 
2. The High Court was, therefore, not right in setting aside 
the entire jail sentence of respondent No.I while upholding his 
conviction under Section 325 IPC. The High Court ought to 
have either upheld the award of jail sentence of four years awarded 
by the Sessions Court or reduce the jail sentence to any 
reasonable term but it had no jurisdiction to fully set aside the 
jail sentence and substitute it by imposing only fine of Rs.I 0,000/ 
-. The period :llrcady nnclergone by respondent No.I (40 clays) 
while he was in, detention, as under-trial and as convict, was also 
a jail sentence and could be treated as jail sentence once awarded 
to respondent !No.I under Section 325 IPC, and accordingly its 
benefit by way of set off could be given to him under Section 428 
of Code. [Paras 25, 26)(11-D-E] 
3. In vie"' of the time consumed in the litigation (37 years) 
coupled with the findings of two courts below wherein it was held 
that rcsponclenl No.I did not cause any injury to the deceased 
and injured (PW-2), respondent No.1 's conviction under Section 
325 I PC is upheld and punishment of imprisonment of 40 clays 
with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to 
undergo one month rigorous imprisonment is awarded. Since 
respondent No.J has already undergone the jail sentence of 40 
days partly as u:nder-trial and partly as convict, he is not required 
to undergo any further jail sentence in the case at hand. [Paras 
27, 28][11-E-H] 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. TRIBHUWAN & ORS. 
3 
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Najakat Alia Mubarak 
A 
Ali (2001) 6 SCC 31l : (20011 3 SCR 600 - referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2001] 3 SCR 6
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.