/2023 INSC 0667/
Non­Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2259 OF 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5823 of 2023)
Razia Khan       … Appellant
versus
The State of M.P.    … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The   appellant   has   been   convicted   for   the   offences
punishable   under   Sections   333,   353   and   451   of   the   Indian
Penal   Code,   1860   (for   short,   ‘IPC’).     The   Sessions   Court
convicted the appellant for all three offences.  For the offences
punishable   under   Sections   451   and   353   of   the   IPC,   the
appellant   was   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment
for   one   year   each   and   for   the   offence   punishable   under
Section   333   of   IPC,   he   was   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment   for   two   years   with   a   fine   of   ₹ 2,000/­.     By   the
impugned   judgment,   the   High   Court   while   upholding   the
conviction,   brought   down   the   substantive   sentence   to
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023     Page  1  of  82023 INSC 667

rigorous   imprisonment   for   six   months   for   each   of   the   three
offences.     On   9 th
  May   2023,   this   Court   issued   a   notice
confined only to the sentencing part.  
SUBMISSIONS 
2. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   firstly
submitted that considering the facts of the case, the appellant
deserves to be granted the benefit of probation under Section
360   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (for   short,
‘Cr.P.C.’)   and/or   the   Probation   of   the   Offenders   Act,   1958.
Secondly, he submitted that the incident complained occurred
on 1 st
  December 1992 and during the period of the last thirty
and a half years, during the pendency of the trial and appeal,
the appellant was all throughout on bail.  The learned counsel
submitted that the appellant is a woman whose present age is
62 years.   He submitted that considering the long passage of
time of thirty years and more from the date of the offence and
other relevant factors, even if the benefit of probation cannot
be   given   to   the   appellant,   she   deserves   to   be   let   off   only   on
payment of a fine.  
3. Mr.   D.S.   Parmar,   the   learned   Additional   Advocate
General   appearing   for   the   respondent   –   State   of   M.P.
submitted that the appellant has misbehaved with PW­1 who
is   a   public   servant   and   obstructed   her   and   PW­6   from
discharging   their   official   duties   and   therefore,   in   fact,
stringent   punishment   was   called   for.     Moreover,   the   High
Court has already shown leniency by reducing the sentence.
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023     Page  2  of  8

OUR VIEW
4. It   is   necessary   for   us   to   note   the   nature   of   the   offence.
The   appellant   claims   to   be   a   social   worker   belonging   to   a
political   party.     A   written   complaint   was   made   by   Ms   Sajni
Batra   (PW­1)   on   1 st
  December   1992   to   the   Police.     She   was
working   as   a   Deputy   Director   in   the   Directorate   of   Women
and   Child   Development   at   Bhopal.     At   that   time,   Shri   P.
Raghvan   (PW­6)   was   posted   as   the   Commissioner   in   the
Directorate.  On 1 st
 December 1992, PW­6 was conducting an
official   meeting   in   his   chamber   in   the   presence   of   PW­1   and
other   officers.     The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   when   the
meeting was in progress, suddenly, the appellant barged into
the   chamber   of   PW­6.     She   threw   a   file   at   PW­6   and   started
shouting in abusive language.   When  PW­1 tried to  stop her,
the appellant pushed her.   As a result, the PW­1 sustained a
fracture   in   the   little   right   finger.     The   appellant   claimed   that
she was the sister of a Member of Parliament and threatened
to   remove   PW­6   from   his   post.     The   Sessions   Court   and   the
High Court believed the testimonies of  the eye­witnesses and
especially   of   PW­1   and   PW­6.     Considering   the   nature   of   the
offence,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the   benefit   of
probation can be extended to the appellant.
5. As noted in our order  dated 9 th
  May 2023, no case was
made   out   to   interfere   with   the   order   of   conviction   and   the
notice   was   confined   to   sentence.     Therefore,   the   question   is
about   the   quantum   of   sentence.     Looking   at   the   findings
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023     Page  3  of  8

recorded   by   the   Sessions   Court   and   the   High   Court,   the
following  are  the  relevant  factors   for  deciding   the   question  of
showing leniency to the appellant: 
a. For   espousing   the   cause   of   the   labourers,   the
appellant visited the office of the Directorate;
b. Evidence   of   PW­1   and   PW­2   Hemraj   (a   peon
working   in   the   Office   of   the   Commissioner)   indicated
that the appellant had sent a slip of her name to PW­6
which was kept on the table of PW­6 as she wanted to
meet him.  After waiting for a considerable time, as she
was not allowed to meet PW­6, she forced her entry to
his cabin and complained that she was made to wait;
c. PW­1 admitted that the appellant was not annoyed
with her.  She stated that the appellant did not indulge
in   any   scuffle   with   her.     When   she   tried   to   stop   the
appellant, she was pushed by the appellant and that is
how she received injury to her little right finger;
d. The incident is more than thirty years old;
e. During   the   last   thirty   and   a   half   years,   when   the
trial   and   appeal   were   pending,   the   appellant   was   all
throughout on bail.  Even in this appeal, an exemption
has   been   granted   to   her   from   the   requirement   of
surrendering;  
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023     Page  4  of  8

f. During   this   long   period   of   more   than   30   long
years,   there   was   no   allegation   of   any   objectionable
activity by her; and
g. The appellant is a female whose present age is 62
years.
6. At   the   same   time,   we   cannot   ignore   that   the   appellant
indulged   in   the   objectionable   act   of   entering   the   chamber   of
PW­6   who   was   discharging   his   official   duty   as   a   public
servant.     At   that   time,   PW­6   was   holding   a   meeting   with   the
officials including PW­1.  The appellant abused PW­6 by using
very   bad   language.     At   that   time,   PW­1   tried   to   stop   the
appellant but the appellant pushed PW­1.   As a result, PW­1
suffered a fracture in her little right finger.   That is how both
Courts   have   held   the   appellant   guilty   of   the   offences
punishable under Sections 333, 353 and 451 of the IPC.
7. The offence punishable under Section 333 of voluntarily
causing   grievous   hurt   to   deter   a   public   servant   from
discharging his duty attracts punishment by imprisonment of
either   description   for   a   term   which   may   extend   to   ten   years
with   a   fine.     The   offence   punishable   under   Section   353   of
using   criminal   force   to   deter   a   public   servant   from
discharging his duty attracts punishment of imprisonment of
either  description  for  a term   which   may  extend  to   two  years,
or   with   a   fine,   or   with   both.     Lastly,   the   offence   punishable
under   Section   451   of   committing   house   trespass   in   order   to
commit   any   offence   punishable   with   imprisonment,   attracts
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023     Page  5  of  8

imprisonment   of   either   description   for   a   term   which   may
extend to two years and a fine.
8. Considering   the   seriousness   of   the   offence   punishable
under   Section   333   of   the   IPC   and   since   the   punishment
prescribed is both of imprisonment of either description and a
fine, obviously, the appellant cannot be let off only on a fine.
However, considering the circumstances set out in paragraph
5 above, we are of the view that the appellant deserves to  be
shown   leniency   when   it   comes   to   the   substantive   sentence.
The   distinct   factors   set   out   in   paragraph   no.5,   taken
individually,   do   not   constitute   a   ground   by   itself   to   show
leniency.  For example, only because an accused is on bail for
a   long   time,   it   is   no   ground   by   itself   to   show   leniency.     It   is
only one of the several factors to be considered.  But we have
considered these factors cumulatively.   Hence, we propose  to
bring   down   the   sentence   of   the   appellant   for   the   offence
punishable under Section 333 to simple imprisonment for one
month.  We propose to impose a fine of  ₹ 30,000/­ for the said
offence.
9. The   offence   punishable   under   Section   353   provides   for
punishment by imprisonment of either description for a term
which   may   extend   to   two   years,   or   with   a   fine,   or   with   both.
We, therefore, propose to bring down her sentence to a fine of
₹ 20,000/­.     As   regards   the   offence   under   Section   451   of   the
IPC,   if   the   offence   is   not   committed   with   the   intention   of
committing   theft,   it   is   punishable   by   imprisonment   of   either
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023     Page  6  of  8

description   for   a   period   of   two   years   and   to   pay   a   fine.
Looking   at  the   factors   set  out  in   paragraph   5,  we   propose   to
sentence   the   appellant   to   undergo   simple   imprisonment   for
one month and to pay a fine of  ₹ 25,000/­.
10. Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   partly   allowed.     The   order   of
conviction   of   the   appellant   by   both   the   Courts   for   offences
punishable   under   Sections   333,   353   and   451   of   the   IPC   is
confirmed.     For   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   333   of
the IPC, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for
one   month   and   pay   a   fine   of   ₹ 30,000/­   within   one   month
from today.   For the offence punishable under Section 451 of
the IPC, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for
one  month   and  to   pay   a  fine  of   ₹ 25,000/­  within  a  period   of
one   month   from   today.     We   bring   down   the   sentence   for   the
offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC by directing
the appellant to pay a fine of  ₹ 20,000/­ within a period of one
month   from   today.     The   fine   amounts   as   aforesaid   shall   be
deposited   in   the   Trial   Court.     The   fine   amounts   will   be
inclusive   of   the   fine   of   ₹ 2,000/­   directed   to   be   paid   by   the
trial   Court.     The   substantive   sentences   shall   run
concurrently.
11. In  default of payment of the  fine imposed in  each  case,
the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
12. Out   of   the   fine   amount,   a   sum   of   ₹ 25,000/­   shall   be
paid over to the injured witness PW­1 Ms Sajni Batra by way
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023     Page  7  of  8

of compensation.   The rest of the fine amount shall go to the
State.
13. We   grant   time   of   one   month   to   the   appellant   to
surrender   before   the   Trial   Court   for   undergoing   the
punishment.  The appeal is partly allowed on above terms. 
…………………….J.
 (Abhay S. Oka)
.…………………...J.
      (Sanjay Karol)
New Delhi;
August 3, 2023.
SLP (Crl.) No 5823 of 2023     Page  8  of  8