Holding

The High Court was correct in altering the conviction to Section 326, but erred in substituting the custodial sentence with a fine alone; the Supreme Court restored rigorous imprisonment of two years plus the fine.

Summary

The case arose from an assault on Omkar Lal, who was attacked with pharsas and lathis by three accused. The trial court convicted all three under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and sentenced them to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court acquitted one accused, altered the conviction of the remaining two to Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), and reduced their punishment to a fine of Rs.3,500 each. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the conviction could be altered and whether the fine alone sufficed as punishment. It held that the alteration to Section 326 was justified given the nature of the injuries, but the fine alone was inadequate; the Court restored a two‑year rigorous imprisonment term in addition to the fine and directed payment of the fine to the victim. The appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC can be validly altered to Section 326 IPC based on the nature and extent of injuries inflicted.
Whether the sentence of a fine alone, without custodial punishment, is appropriate in view of the seriousness of the injuries and the delay in trial.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 326

Subjects

attempt to murdergrievous hurtconviction alterationsentencingdelay in trialIPC 307IPC 326rigorous imprisonmentfinevictim compensation

Judgment

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 505

'\
'-1 · MANGAL SINGH & ANR. A
v.
KISHAN SINGH & ORS.
[Criminal Appeal No.1858 of 2008]

NOVEMBER 21, 2008 . B
)· [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

ss.307 and 326 -High Court converting conviction from c
s.307 to s.326 and substituting custodial sentence with fines
- Held: It will be a grave mistake to assume that delay in trial
does not cause acute suffering and anguish to victim of crime
and that, as arule, all offences falling u/s 326 would be less
serious than those falling uls 307 and would consequently · D
attract lighter sentence ..:... In the instant case, from the injuries
.+- suffered by victim, it is evident that though the accused did
not intend to kill him, they surely wanted to leave him crippled
for the rest of his life ~ Therefore, alteration of conviction by
High Court cannot be said -fb be unjustified - But,- the· High E
Court erred in waiving off the custodial sentence - Both the
accused must serve rigorous imprisonment for two years ·in
addition to a fine of Rs. 35001~ each :.... Sentencing - Balancing
the factors of delay in trial and injuries caused to victim.
> "(
F
The complainant and the injured victim filed· the
instant appeal challenging the judgment and order of the
High Court acquitting one of the three accused convicted
by the trial court ofthe charge u/s 307 IPC, converting the
conviction -of the remaining two
accused from s.307 ·to G
326' IPC and reducing the·ir· sentence from five years
~
rigorous imprisonment, as awarded by the-friat court, to
the period already undergone which· was 4 months· and

505 H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A 3 months respectively, and in lieu of imprisonment ~ ,(,

imposing a fine of Rs.3500/- on each of the two accused.
The question for consideration before the Court was as
to whether the High Court. was justified in altering the
conviction of respondents 1 and 3 from s./3'07 to s.326
B IPC and reducing their sentence to fines only. In so far
as th.e. acquittal of. respondent no.2 was ccmcerned, :the
Court observed that the judgment of the High Court 'f
called for no interference. ..

c ,. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court·
.'
.. HELD: 1. The injury· rep_ort shows that all the injuries
' . • f . • • • ' ••

inflicted on the victim .were either on his legs or arms.
Indeed.a number of injuries were q'uite grievous but the
D accused.• while assaulting' their victim ruthlessly, were
careful not to give any blow o.n any vital part of the body
apparently to make sure that it would not lead to his death.
The. Doctor. in his stateme.nt before the court did not say· +
that the injuries were s~fficfont in the ordinary course of
E nature to cause death. Having regard to the evidence on
record, the a!teration of the r~spondentS' conviction by
the High. Court from s.307 to s.326 cannot be said to be
wrong and unjustified. [Paras 10 and 11] [511-B-D]

2.1. As regards the sentence; the High Court has
F
~rred in balancing the relevant factors. AnY inordinate .,,.... Ao'

delay in conclusion ot' a criminai .trial undoubtedly has
highly deleterious effect on the society generally and
particularly on the two sides to the case. But it will be a
G grave mistake to assume that delay in trial does not cause
ti?
a~,u~~ suJferi~g and ang~ish the victim' of the offen~e.,
There is, therefore no reason. Jo give· ali the benefits on -~
accoun't of' the delay 'in trial to the accused a'nd to
completely deny justice to the. victim of the offence. In the
H instant case, there is nothing to indicate that the
MANGAL SINGH & ANR. v. KISHAN SINGH & ORS. 501

~
~ appellants or the prosecution were responsible for the A
delay in trial. Similarly, it is a mistake to think that, as a
rule, all offences falling u/s 326 IPC would be less serious
than the offences falling u/s 307 IPC and would
consequently attract lighter sentence. From the injuries
suffered by the victim, it is evident that though the 8
)--
respondents did not intend to kill him altogether, they
surely wanted to leave him crippled for a lifetime. [Paras
13, 12 and 14] [512-8-D-E-F-G-H]

2.2. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by the c
victim, the senten·ce of rigorous imprisonment is restored
and it is directed that respondents 1 and 3 must serve
rigorous imprisonment for two years· in addition to the
fine of Rs.3,500/- imposed by High ·Court. On realisation
of the amounts of fine, Rs.6000/- would be paid to the D
victim. [Para 12 and 14] [511-E; 513-A-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1858 of 2008.
E
From the final Judgment and final Order dated .18.8.2005
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Crl.
Appeal No. 283 of 1998.

Savitri Pandey and P.P. Singh for the Appellants.
F
.-. -i
S.K. Dubey Rajesh, Naveen Sharma and S.S. Banthia for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties
-~
2. Leave granted

3. Appellant no.1 is the informant of the case and appellant
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] ·16 S.C.R

A no.2 is his father, the injured victim of the offence. They filed
this appeal against thejudgment and order dated 18 August
2005 passed by the Gwalior bench. of the Madhya Pradesh
High·Court in criminal appeal no.283 of 1998. Before the High
-Court there were three appellants_(respondents before this
B Court) who were convicted by the trial court under section 307
of Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five
years and fine of rupees 1000=00 each; in case of default in
payment of fine they were directed to .undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. The High Court, by the judgment
C coming under appeal,' acquitted Dault Singh (Appellant no.2
before the High Court) and· altered the conviction of Kishan
Singh and Devilal (appella_nts 1 and 3 before the High Court
and respondent 1&3 before- this Court) from section 307 to
section 326 of the Penal Code and ·reduced their custodial
D sentence to the respective periods that they had already
undergone. In lieu of imprisonment, lhe High· Court punished
them with fine of rupees 3500=00 each with the direction that
in ·default of payment of firie they would undergo s·imple
imprisonment for six months. The High Court further directed
E that on realisation of the amounts of fine, Rs.5000=00 s.hould
be paid to the injured victim Omkar La'I. .At the time of the High
Court judgment Kishan Singh (respondent no.1) had served
about four months in jail and Devi Lal (respondent no. 3) about
three months.
F
4. On hearing counsel for the parties we are satisfied that
in so far as the acquittal of Dau lat singh (respondent no.2) is
concerned the judgment of the High Court calls for no
interference. The limited question for consideration is whether
G the High Court was justified in altering the conviction of the other
two respondents from section 307 to section 326 of the Penal
code and reducing their sentence to fines only.

5. We propose to state here only such facts that are
H
MANGAL SINGH & ANR. v. KISHAN SINGH & ORS. 509
[AFTAB ALAM, J.]
., -1 germane to the limited-issue. A

6. According to the prosecution case, as made out in the
first information report lodged by appellant no.1, on 14 July
1996 at about quarter past ten in the morning while the
informant and his father were going.through the jungle they were B
ambushed by the accused persons, including the three
respondents in this appeal. Among the accused the three
respondents were armed with Pharsas and the other four were
carrying lathis. All the seven accused assaulted the informant's
father Omkar Lal with Pharsas and lathis on his legs and hands. c
While beating him the accused also declared their intent not
to leave him alive.

7. All the seven accused were put on trial on charges under
Sections 307, 341, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Penal D
Code. The Trial court by judgment and order dated 27
September 1998 passed in Sessions. Trial no. 327 /1996
acquitted the four accused who were alleged to be armed with
lathis but convicted the three respondents under section 307
of the Penal Code and passed sentence on them as stated E
above. In appeal the High Court modified the conviction and
sentence ·as noted above.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
having regard to the medical evidence and the nature of injuries F
~ 'i the Trial Court had rightly convicted the respondents under
section 307 and the High Court erred in altering the conviction
under section 326 of the Code. Learned counsel placed strong
reliance on the evidence of PW 3, Dr. S. 0. Bhola who had
found five incised injuries on the hands and legs of Omkar lal
... -A
and PW 7 Dr. Sitaram Singh Raghuvanshiwho on the basis of
X-ray examination of the different injuries of Omkar lal deposed
G
'

before the Trial Court that there were fractures of left radius,
right ulna, right fibula and left fibula bones. Counsel further
submitted that Dr. Bhola PW 3 stated before the Trial Court that H
•
510 ~UPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.~.R.

A in case no medical care was provided the injured person could "r--
,.
have died. Counsel submitted that the injuries sustained by
ap·pellant no. 2 and the evidences of the two doctors clearly
indicated that the accused intended to kill him and he could
survive only. due to timely medical help.
B
9. The injuries found on the person of appellant no. 2 are
enumerated in the judgment of the trial court; those were as
follows:

"[1] one incised wound 3 x 1 x bone deep on the right
c forearm and swelling on the back side and depth was·
upwards;

[2] Contusion 4 x 1 cm. on the right forearm on the upper
· portion and possibility of fracture on the back side;
D
[3] Incised wound 10 x 2 x bone deep below the right leg
and depth downwards and possibility of fracture;

[4] lncisea woun~ 3 x 1 x bone deep below the right leg
and 1/3rd portion (sic) deep inside;
E
[5] Contusion 3 x 1 cm. on the right leg on fro~t portion;

[6] Incised wound 5 x 5 x bone deep below the right side
left and on 1/3rd portion in front;
F [7] Incised wound 4 x 5 x bone de~p below the left leg on )'- ~

tront side;

[8] Lacerated wound 5 x 5 x bone deep above ankle joints
on 1/3rd portion and chances of fracture;
G
•. {9] Incised w.oµl_d .3.x .1. x .~one d.eep b~lo~ th~ :left.leg ~n
1/3rd portion on·outer side and qepth inside and upwards;
*
..
[1 OJ Incised wound 4 x 1 x bone deep behind the left
forearm and depth inside and upwards; and
H
.,_
'
MANGAL SINGH & ANR. v. KISHAN SINGH & ORS. 511
[AFTAB ALAM, J.]
") __.., [11] Contusion 5 x 1 x bone deep behind the left forearm A
and the general condition of the patient was bad."
10. The injury report shows that all the injuries inflicted on
appellant no. 2 were either on his legs or arms. Indeed a
number of injuries were quite grievous but it seems the accused B
were careful not to give any blow on any vital part of the body.
Had the intention been to kill him one or two blows on the head
or neck would have served the purpose. It seems while
assaulting him ruthlessly the accused aimed all the blows. on
his legs and arms apparently to make sure that that would not c
lead to his death. The Doctor stated before the court that the
injured might have died if medical care was not given to him
but he didn't say the injuries were sufficient in the course of
nature to cause death.
D
11. Having regard to the evidence on records we are
satisfied that the alteration of the respondents' conviction by the
High Court from Sec. 307 to 326 cannot be said to be wrong
and unjustified.
12. But the same view cnnnot be taken on the question pf E
sentence. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by appellant
no.2 only a fine of rupees 3500=00 appears wholly inadequate.
In certain circumstances the court may not feel inclined to send
the convict to jail and the offence being an old one may be .a
.. , relevant consideration. But in such cases the custodial sentence F
should be substituted by heavy fine; something that should pinch
the offender and make him feel and .recall the offence
committed by him. At the same time that should appear to the
victim of the offence as at least some punishment to the
offender. Further, in a given case there may be considerations G
that may outweigh the argument in favour of not sending th~
-~
offender to jail simply because the offence was committed long
ago. In this case we feel the High Court has erred in balancing
the relevant factors. The High Court seems to have waived off
H
•
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S..C.R.

~ r
A the custodial sentence and let off the respondents with a modest
fine mainly on two·considerations. One, that·the offence was
committed in the year 1996 and it would serve no useful
·purpose to send the respondents tb jail after ten years of the
occurrence. And two; the respondents being convicted ofthe
B offenee of causing grievous hurt in place attempted murder. We
are unable to agree with the High Court on both the counts. Any -i
inordinate delay in conclusion of a criminal triar undoubtedly has ~

highly deleterious effect on the society generally and particularly
on the two sides to the case. But it will be a grave mistake to
c assume that delay in trial does not cause-acute suffering and
anguish to the victim of the offence. In many cases the victim
may suffer even more than the accused. There is, therefore ·no
reason to give all the benefits on account of the delay in trial to
the accused and to completely deny all justice to the victim of
D the offence. In this case there is nothing to indicate that the
appellants or the prosecution were responsible for the delay in
trial. We are, therefore of the view that the High Court was not
right in substituting the custodial sentence of the respondents
to only fines of rupees 3500=00.
E
13, Coming to. the second reas9n weighing with the High
Court, it is a mistake to think that as a rule all offences_falli_ng
under section 326 would be less serious than the offences
falling under section 307 of the Penal_ Code and .would
F consequently attract lighter se.ntence. An offence under sectiqn
. . .
326 rnay be actually. more serious than an.other falling. under
r- ""
section 307 of the Code. For instance, acid thrown on the face
of a young, unmarried girl would come under sec;:tion 326 but it
would be far more serious than a firearm shot missing the
G victim that would fall under section 307 of the Code.
..,
14. From the injuries suffered by appellant no:2 it is evident +.-
that though the·resp·ondents did notintend to kill him altogether
they surely wanted to leave him crippled for a lifetime. In our
opinion therefore the High Court ·was not right in letting them
H Ji-
MANGAL SINGH & ANR. v. KISHAN SINGH & ORS. 513
[AFTAB ALAM, J.]

off on completing sentence of imprisonment of merely four A
months and three months respectively. We accordingly restore
the sentence of rigorous imprisonment given to the respondents
1&3 and direct that they must serve rigorous· imprisonment for
two years in addition to the fine of ~s.3,500 imposed by High
Court; in case of default in payment of fine the respondents B
would suffer- simple imprisonment for six months. On realisation
of the amounts of fine Rs.6000=00 would be paid to appellant
no.2

15. In the result the appeal is partly allowed as indicated c
above.
R.P. Appeal partly allowed.

"
- ..