HARIBHAUversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

622                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    10 S.C.R. 622            [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A                                HARIBHAU
                                       v.
                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of 2018)
B                           SEPTEMBER 04, 2018
                   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
                    UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
            Sentence/Sentencing:
C            Conviction u/ss. 353, 504 and 294 r/w s. 34 IPC by courts
      below – Sentence of 3 months R1 and fine of Rs. 800/- imposed –
      On appeal, plea of accused to reduce the sentence – Held: In view
      of the facts that imprisonment of one month was already undergone,
      that incident occurred on spur of moments, that accused had no
      criminal antecedent, that the incident was quite old and that the
D
      accused was not required in any other criminal case, sentence is
      reduced to the period already undergone – Instead fine amount is
      enhanced to Rs. 15000/- from Rs. 800/- – Penal Code, 1860 –
      ss. 353/34, 504/34 and 294/34.
            Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
E
            HELD: 1. Taking into account that the appellant has already
      undergone one month’s jail sentence out of three months awarded
      to him; the fact that the incident in question is quite old and seems
      to have occurred at the spur of the moment, the appellant has no
      criminal antecedent in his past life and that he is not required in
F     any other criminal case except the one in question which the
      appellant fairly did not deny having committed and rightly did
      not challenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and proper
      to alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from three
      months to the extent of period of one month which was already
G     undergone by him and instead enhance the total fine amount
      awarded under different Sections from Rs.800/- to Rs.15,000/-.
      [Para 14] [625-C-E]
            2. Failure to deposit the fine amount within one month would
      result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below
H
                                    622
           HARIBHAU v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                                 623


and the appellant will have to then undergo the remaining jail              A
sentence awarded by the Courts below. [Para 17] [625-G-H]
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1118 of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal            B
No. 258 of 2006.
      Shakul R. Ghatole, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advs. for the
Appellant.
      Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the Respondent.                    C
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
20.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
                                                                            D
Bench in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2006 whereby the High Court while
allowing the appeal with respect to other accused- Babarao Shriram
Chaudhary dismissed the appeal with respect to the appellant herein and
confirmed his conviction and sentence awarded to him by order dated
10.04.2006 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim
in Atrocities Case No.28 of 2005 by which the appellant and Babarao         E
had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 294
and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC”) and had directed them to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 353/
34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs.200/-
                                                                            F
under Section 504/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month
with fine of Rs.100/- under Section 294/34 IPC. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
       3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that Bala Saheb Ingole
(PW-1) was serving as a teacher in Zilla Parishad Primary School at
Januna, Tahsil Karanja District Washim (MH). On 05.04.2005, the             G
appellant (Haribhau) and Babarao, who were Sarpanch and Member of
the Gram Panchayat, Januna respectively visited the School and asked
Bala Saheb as to why he came late in the School. Bala Saheb offered
his explanation.
                                                                            H
624            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A            4. The explanation offered by Bala Saheb did not satisfy the
      appellant and Babarao, therefore, they asked Bala Saheb for book of
      circle-in-charge maintained by the School. Since Bala Saheb did not
      give the book, the appellant (Haribhau) caught hold of his shirt’s collar
      and while using abusive language gave kicks and blows to him. They
      also gave threat to Bala Saheb for causing injuries endangering his life.
B
            5. It is this incident which gave rise to lodging of FIR which was
      followed by the prosecution of the appellant (Haribhau) and Babarao
      for commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 294
      read with Section 34 of IPC and in addition under Section 3(1)(x) of the
      Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
C     Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”).
             6. By order dated 10.04.2006, the Additional Sessions Judge,
      Washim convicted the appellant and Babarao for the offences punishable
      under Sections 353, 504 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded
      the sentences mentioned above. The appellant and Babarao were,
D     however, acquitted for commission of the offence punishable under Section
      3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act.
            7. The appellant and Babarao felt aggrieved by the order of
      conviction and sentence and filed appeal before the High Court of
      Bombay, Nagpur Bench. By impugned order, the High Court allowed
E     the appeal with respect to Babarao and acquitted him of all the charges
      leveled against him.
             8. So far as the appellant (Haribhau) is concerned, his appeal was
      dismissed. In other words, the appellant’s conviction and the sentence
      awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge was upheld giving rise to
F     filing of this appeal by way of special leave by Haribhau in this Court.
            9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
             10. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant was essentially
      one. According to him, out of total jail sentence awarded to the appellant,
      he has already undergone one month actual jail sentence and since then
G
      he is on bail.
            11. It was his submission that having regard to the nature of the
      offence committed by the appellant, his age (60 years), his spotless career
      throughout without any criminal antecedents and lastly, the fact that he
H
           HARIBHAU v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                                     625
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

has already undergone one month jail sentence in relation to the offence        A
committed 13 years back, hence this Court while upholding the appellant’s
conviction may consider proper to alter the sentence awarded to the
appellant and reduce it to the extent the period already undergone in jail
by him and instead impose more fine on him to meet the ends of justice.
      12. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent-State urged for          B
upholding of the impugned order.
       13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we find force in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant.
       14. In our considered opinion, firstly, taking into account that the     C
appellant has already undergone one month’s jail sentence out of three
months awarded to him, secondly, the fact that the incident in question is
quite old and seems to have occurred at the spur of the moment, thirdly,
the appellant has no criminal antecedent in his past life and lastly, he is
not required in any other criminal case except the one in question which        D
the appellant fairly did not deny having committed and rightly did not
challenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and proper to alter the
jail sentence awarded to the appellant from three months to the extent
of period of one month which was already undergone by him and instead
enhance the total fine amount awarded under different Sections from
Rs.800/- to Rs.15,000/-.                                                        E

       15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and
is accordingly allowed in part. The jail sentence awarded to the appellant
by the Courts below is altered and is accordingly reduced to the extent
of period of one month which already undergone by him.
                                                                                F
       16. In other words, the appellant is now not required to serve any
more jail sentence than what he has already undergone and at the same
time the amount of the total fine awarded by the Courts below is enhanced
from Rs.800/- to Rs.15,000/- for being paid to the complainant- Bala
Saheb Ingole.
                                                                                G
       17. Failure to deposit the fine amount within one month would
result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the
appellant will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence awarded
by the Courts below.

                                                                                H
626             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A           18. Let the amount of fine be deposited by the appellant in Trial
      Court within one month from the date of this order for being paid to the
      Complainant.


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                   Appeal partly allowed.
B




C




D




E




F




G




H