/2022 INSC 0772/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1499   OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2353 of 2017)
Sahebrao Arjun Hon                … APPELLANT(S)
v.
Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon & Ors.           ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The   appellant  is   the  complainant   who   is   one   of   the   victims
of the offence subject matter of this appeal. The respondent nos.1
to   4   are   the   accused   nos.7   to   10.   On   account   of   death   of   the
respondent   no.3­accused   no.9,   this   appeal   stands   abated   as
against him.
3. The   respondent   nos.1   to   4   were   convicted   by   a   Court   of
Judicial   Magistrate   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections
1

326, 324 and 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).   For the offence punishable under Section
326   read   with   Section   34   of   IPC,   the   learned   Trial   Judge
sentenced   the   respondent   nos.1   to   4   to   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment   for   a   period   of   three   years   and   to   pay   fine   of
Rs.3,000/­   each.       In   default   of   payment   of   fine,   they   were
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months each. For
the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of
IPC,   the   said   respondents   were   sentenced   to   suffer   rigorous
imprisonment   for   a   period   of   one   year   and   to   pay   fine   of
Rs.1,000/­   each.     In   default   of   payment   of   fine,   they   were
sentenced   to   undergo   simple  imprisonment   for   one  month   each.
For   the   offence  punishable  under   Section   447   read  with  Section
34 of IPC, they were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/­ each and
in   default,   to   suffer   simple   imprisonment   for   15   days   each.   All
the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.  Out
of the fine amount paid by them, the learned Trial Judge directed
that   compensation   of   Rs.1,000/­   shall   be   paid   to   the   appellant
(PW­2)   and   to   the   other   injured   Arjun   Dada   Hon   (PW­8).     The
learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of
the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in appeal. The respondent nos.1 to 4
2

preferred   a   revision   application   before   the   High   Court.     By   the
impugned judgment dated 19 th
 December, 2016, while confirming
the   conviction,   the   substantive   sentence   imposed   on   them   of
rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable
under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC was brought down
to   rigorous   imprisonment   for   one   year.     For   the   offence
punishable   under   Section   324   read   with   Section   34,   the
respondent   nos.1   to   4   were   let   off   on   the   sentence   already
undergone   by   them.     However,   the   respondent   nos.   1,2   and   4
were   directed   to   pay   a   sum   of   Rs.   20,000/­   each   to   the   two
victims as compensation in terms of Section 357­A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’).
4. According   to   the   prosecution   case,   on   26 th
  March   1992   at
about   6.30   pm,   when   the   appellant   came   near   the   pan   shop   of
the   accused   no.11,   he   was   called   by   the   said   accused.     After
getting his tractor repaired, the appellant came to the shop of the
accused   no.11.   It   is   alleged   that   the   accused   no.11   objected   to
the   appellant   being   in   company   of   one   Vithobanana.     Accused
no.11 described the said Vithobanana as a beggar.  The appellant
responded by telling the accused no.11 that he had no business
to question him as the said Vithobanana was his relative. At that
3

time, the respondent no.1 – accused no. 7 arrived at the spot and
there   was   exchange   of   words   between   the   appellant   and   the
respondent   no.1.     At   that   time,   Arjun   Dada   Hon   (PW­8)   who   is
also   a   victim   of   offence   came   there   and   tried   to   pacify   the
respondent   no.1.     It   is   alleged   that   at   that   time,   the   accused
no.11   caught   hold   of   collar   of   PW­8   and   abused   him.   When   the
appellant tried to intervene, the accused no.11 slapped him. The
incident   ended   there   as   the   persons   concerned   dispersed   from
the spot.
5. On   the   same   day,   at   about   7­7.30   pm,   the   appellant   and
PW­8  were sitting  on  a  platform   in front  of  their  house.   At  that
time, PW­5 Karna and his son also came there.   At about 8­8.30
pm, the respondent nos.1 to 4 arrived there and started abusing
the   appellant   and   PW­8.   At   that   time,   the   respondent   no.1   was
carrying   a   stick   in   his   hand.   He   gave   a   blow   of   the   stick   on   the
appellant’s   head.   The   respondent   no.   2   gave   a   blow   by   using   a
scythe on the neck and back of the appellant. It is the case of the
prosecution   that   even   Arjun   (PW­8)   was   assaulted   by   the   said
respondents by using sticks. It is the case of the prosecution that
one   Sachin   (PW­9)   and   Madhukar   (PW­4)   also   suffered   minor
injuries.
4

6. The   learned   Trial   Judge   believed   the   testimony   of   the
appellant   (PW­2)   and   the   other   injured   witness   Arjun   (PW­8)
which was duly supported by the medical evidence as well as the
evidence   regarding   recovery   of   the   weapons   of   assault   at   the
instance of the accused. 
7. In   support   of   the   present   appeal,   Shri   Shivaji   M.   Jadhav,
the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted   that
notwithstanding the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the
appellant   and   PW­8,   the   Trial   Court   showed   leniency   while
imposing   sentence   of   three   years   of   rigorous   imprisonment   for
the   offence   punishable   under   Section   326   read   with   Section   34.
The   learned   counsel   submitted   that   the   appellant   suffered   11
injuries   including   depressed   fracture   on   left   parietal   region.   He
suffered   life   threatening   injuries   on   left   parietal   region   and   left
side of the neck.   He pointed out that the prosecution examined
Dr.   Vijay   Gyanba   Kshirsagar   (PW­12)   who   deposed   that   the
condition   of   the   appellant   was   serious   when   he   was   brought   to
him   for   treatment.   The   learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the
appellant   submitted   that   there   was   absolutely   no   reason   for  the
High   Court   to   reduce   the   substantive   sentence   to   the   period   of
one year.  
5

8. Shri   Sudhanshu   S.   Choudhari,   the   learned   counsel   for   the
respondent nos.1,2 and 4 submitted that if this Court is inclined
to consider the submissions made by the appellant on merits, the
revision   application   may   be   remanded   to   the   High   Court.   He
submitted   that   though   submissions   were   made   before   the   High
Court   on   merits   of   the   conviction,   effectively   what   is   considered
by the High Court is only the submission made on behalf of the
said respondents in the alternative for substantially reducing the
sentence.   He   would,   therefore,   submit   that   the   prayer   for
enhancement made by the appellant cannot be considered.   If at
all   it   is   to   be   considered,   the   revision   application   may   be
remanded to the High Court.
9. After   the   submissions   were   substantially   heard,   we   had
suggested   to   the   parties   to   explore   possibility   of   an   amicable
settlement.     However,   the   learned   counsel   reported   to   the   Court
that there is no possibility of any amicable settlement.
10. We   have   given   careful   consideration   to   the   submissions
made   across   the   bar.   The   Trial   Court   and   the   Appellate   Court
have   concurrently   found   that   the   offences   punishable   under
Section   326   read   with   Section   34   and   Section   324   read   with
Section 34 of IPC have been duly established by the prosecution.
6

Though   while   deciding   the   revision   application,   the   High   Court
may not have elaborately recorded reasons, in paragraph 4 of the
impugned judgment, after considering the evidence on record, the
learned   Judge   of   the   High   Court   has   expressed   a   general
agreement   with   the   concurrent   findings   recorded   by   the   two
Courts.   While   exercising   the   revisional   jurisdiction,   the   High
Court was not expected to record detailed reasons for concurring
with the reasons recorded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court.
Perusal of paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment shows that the
submission regarding reduction of sentence was made in addition
to the contentions raised on merits. 
11. The   High   Court   has   chosen   to   take   a   very   lenient   view   by
reducing   the   substantive   sentence   for   the   offences   punishable
under   Section   326   read   with   Section   34   and   Section   324   read
with   Section   34   of   IPC.   The   substantive   sentence   of   the   offence
under   Section   326   has   been   reduced   to   one   year.   As   far   as
Section   324   of   IPC   is   concerned,   the   respondent   nos.1,2   and   4
have been let off on the sentence already undergone.
12 . As far as the sentencing is concerned, the judicial discretion
is   always   guided   by   various   considerations   such   as   seriousness
7

of   the   crime,   the   circumstances   in   which   crime   was   committed
and  the antecedents of the accused. The  Court is required to go
by   the   principle   of   proportionality.   If   undue   sympathy   is   shown
by reducing the sentence to the minimum, it may adversely affect
the   faith   of   people   in   efficacy   of   law.     It   is   the   gravity   of   crime
which is the prime consideration for deciding what should be the
appropriate punishment.  
13. Perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that there
is   no   finding   recorded   regarding   the   existence   of   any   relevant
mitigating circumstance in favour of the respondent nos.1,2 and
4.     It   is   always   the   duty   of   the   Court   to   balance   aggravating
circumstances   and   mitigating   circumstances   at   the   time   of
imposing sentence.   Perusal of the findings recorded by the Trial
Court   shows   that   the   appellant   suffered   total   11   injuries   on   his
person.   For   four   injuries,   stitches   were   required   to   be   applied.
The   evidence   of   Dr.Shinde   (PW­11)   describes   the   injuries   in
detail. On the basis of X­ray films produced on record, Dr.Shinde
pointed   out   that   depressed   fracture   on   left   parietal   region   was
seen.   Dr.Kshirsagar   (PW­12),   under   whom   the   appellant   was
admitted   as   indoor   patient   has   stated   that   the   condition   of   the
8

appellant   was   serious   when   he   was   brought   to   him.   In   fact,   the
case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   even   a   dying   declaration   of   the
appellant   was   recorded.     Even   the   other   injured   witness   Arjun
(PW­8)   suffered   five   injuries   out   of   which   one   was   on   frontal
parietal   area.   As   against   this,   there   are   no   major   mitigating
circumstances in favour of the respondent nos.1,2 and 4. 
14. The   maximum   sentence   for   the   offence   punishable   under
Section   326   of   IPC   is   imprisonment   for   life.     Even   after
considering   the   nature   of   the   serious   injuries   sustained   by   the
appellant,   the   Trial   Court   took   a   lenient   view   by   imposing
sentence   of   imprisonment   of   only   3   years.   There   was   no
provocation for the respondent nos.1 to 4 to attack the appellant
and the other victims. They came well prepared with the weapons
of   assault   in   front   of   the   house   of   the   appellant   where   the
incident   took   place.   Looking   to   the   gravity   of   the   offence,   there
was   no   warrant   for   showing   leniency.   Even   though   a   case   is
made   out   for   grant   of   enhancement   in   sentence   or   at   least   to
restore   the   sentence   imposed   by   the   Trial   Court,   it   must   be
remembered   that   the   impugned   judgment   is   of   19 th
  December
2016   and   the   respondent   nos.1,   2   and   4   must   have   undergone
9

the entire sentence of one year. The incident is of the year 1992.
Hence,   we   propose   to   enhance   their   sentence   by   six   months’
simple   imprisonment.     Moreover,   we   propose   to   grant   a
reasonable   compensation   to   the   victims   in   addition   to   the
compensation   made   payable   by   the   High   Court.   Therefore,   we
propose   to   direct   the   respondent   nos.   1,2   and   4   to   pay   an
additional   sum   of   Rs.40,000/­   to   the   present   appellant   and   the
injured witness, Arjun Dada Hon (PW­8). 
15.           By modifying  the  impugned judgment of the  High Court,
we direct that in addition to the substantive sentence imposed by
the High Court for the offence punishable under section 326 read
with   section   34   of   IPC,   the   respondent   no.1,2   and   4   shall
undergo   simple   imprisonment   for   six   months.   The   respondent
nos.1,2   and   4   shall   surrender   before   the   Trial   Court   within   six
weeks from today to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
in   addition   to   the   sentence   imposed   by   the   High   Court.   The
respondent   nos.1,2   and   4   shall   deposit   the   total   sum   of
Rs.40,000/­   with   the   Trial   Court   within   a   period   of   one   month
from   today.     The   officer   in   charge   of   Kopargaon   Police   Station
10

shall   ensure   that   the   additional   compensation   is   equally
distributed to the appellant and Arjun Dada Hon (PW­8). 
16 .To   the   above   extent,   the   appeal   is   partly   allowed,   with   no
order as to costs.
....…………………J.
        (SURYA KANT)
….…………………J.
     (ABHAY S. OKA)
New Delhi;
September 6, 2022. 
11