Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of appellants Nos.1, 3 and 4 with modified sentences and increased fines, but acquitted appellant No.2 due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The accused Naresh, Suresh, Ashish and Rajendra were charged with attempting to murder and causing hurt by attacking Tej Singh with an axe in 1998. The Sessions Court acquitted them, but the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted them under IPC sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504, imposing imprisonment and fines. The appellants challenged the convictions before the Supreme Court, arguing lack of proof, the passage of twenty years, the non‑serious nature of injuries, and that they were first‑time offenders. The Court held that the High Court’s findings of fact against Naresh, Ashish and Rajendra were sound, but reduced their jail terms to time already served and increased the fine to Rs.75,000 each, while acquitting Suresh due to insufficient evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part: convictions of three accused were upheld with modified sentences, and the fourth was discharged.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Sessions Court acquittal and convicting the accused under sections 307, 323, 324 and 504 of the IPC.
Whether the evidence against appellant No.2 (Suresh) established his participation beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the quantum of imprisonment awarded to the convicted appellants should be altered in view of the elapsed time, nature of injuries, and their status as first offenders.
Whether the fine imposed by the High Court should be enhanced.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307/34, s. 323/34, s. 324/34, s. 504

Subjects

attempt to murdergrievous hurtIPCconvictionacquittalsentence modificationfine enhancementreasonable doubtappealSupreme CourtUttarakhand

Judgment

940 [2018]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 3 S.C.R. 940 [2018] 3 S.C.R.

A NARESH & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2018)
B APRIL 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 –
Four accused – Prosecution case was that the accused persons
attacked the victim with axe and caused injuries to him on his body
C
– The injuries were abrasion, contusion and one lacerated wound
– Sessions court acquitted all the accused – However, High Court
set aside acquittal and ordered conviction – Appeal against
conviction – Held: In view of finding of facts, interference with the
order of High Court is not called for in case of accused no.1, 3
D and 4 – However, sentence awarded by High Court is reduced to
what they have already undergone for the reason that the appellants
were first offender, the injuries inflicted on the victim were not serious
in nature and victim survived leaving no disability due to causing
of the injuries – The fine of Rs.7000 awarded by High Court is
enhanced to Rs.75000 – In case of appellant no.2, role attributed
E
to him was not established beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
he is acquitted of charges leveled against him.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: So far as the involvement of appellant Nos.1, 3 and
F 4, in commission of offence in question, is concerned, no case for
interference is made out on findings of fact. As regards the
sentence of appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4, their respective jail
sentences awarded by the High Court are modified and reduced
to what they have already undergone and the fine amount awarded
by the High Court enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.75,000/- to
G each appellant for the following reasons. First, the incident is of
1998. In other words, it is now almost 20 years have passed that
this litigation is pending in various Courts. Second, there were
seven injuries noticed by the doctor on the body of injured but
the injuries noticed were not very serious in nature. Third, the
H
940
NARESH v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 941

victim survived leaving no disability much less permanent on his A
body due to causing of the injuries and lived for twenty years
after the date of alleged incident and died recently. Fourth,
appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 have undergone almost one year of jail
sentence including remission out of the total jail sentence awarded
by the High Court. Fifth, the appellants were first offender and
B
were not found involved in any criminal activity in the last 20
years, though remained on bail throughout. [Paras 14-21][944-F-
H; 945-A-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 394-395 of 2018.
C
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2017/17.07.2017 of
the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of
2011 and Government Appeal No. 42 of 2011.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 396 of 2018. D
Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Mrs. Mamta
Jain, Uday Ram Bokadia, Atul Agarwal, Ms. Divya Garg, Rakesh Kumar
Khare, Sonal Jain, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Pankaj Kumar
E
Singh, Mukesh Verma, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Criminal Appeal Nos.394-395 of 2018 F

1. These appeals are filed by the accused persons against the
common final judgment and order dated 10.07.2017/17.07.2017 passed
by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.91
of 2011 (filed by the complainant) and Government Appeal No.42 of
2011 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals of the State and the G
Complainant and set aside the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the
Additional Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial Nos.286 of 1999 and found
the accused persons, Naresh, Suresh, Ashish@Sheshraj and Rajendra
guilty for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307/34,
H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.

A 323/34, 324/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC”) and accordingly sentenced each of them as under:
Accused Tri al Court High Court

Naresh Acquitted under Convicted under Sections 307/34,
(A-1) Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC
B 323/34, 324/34 and
504IPC 5 years R.I. and Rs.5000/- under
Section 307 IP C

6 months R .I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 323/34 IPC
C
2 years R.I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 324/34 IPC

1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/- under
Section 504 IP C
Suresh Acquitted u/s 307/34, Convicted under Section 307/34,
D (A-2) 323/34, 324/34 and 504 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC
IPC
6 months R .I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 323/34 IPC

2 years R.I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 324/34 IPC
E
1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/- under
Section 504 IP C
(However, on account of the
advance stage of lung cancer, 2
years R.I. u/s 307 IPC)
F Ashish@ Acquitted u/s 307/34, Convicted under Sections 307/34,
Shesh 323/34, 324/34 and 504 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC
Raj (A- IPC
3) 5 years R.I. and Rs.5000/- under
Section 307 IP C

6 months R .I. and Rs.500/- under
G Section 323/34 IPC

2 years R.I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 324/34 IPC

1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/- under
Section 504 IP C
H
NARESH v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 943
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

Rajendra Acquitted u/s Convicted under Sections A
(A-4) 307/34, 323/34, 307/34, 323/34, 324/34
324/34 and 504 IPC and 504 IPC
5 years R.I. and Rs.5000/ -
307/34, under Section 307 IPC
C
6 months R.I. and Rs.500/- B
under under Section 323/34 IPC

- under 2 years R.I. and Rs.500/-
under Section 324/34 IPC

1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/- C
nder
under Section 504 IPC

under 2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeals, few
07/34, relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow.
C 3. The appellants herein are the accused. They are Naresh (A- D
1), Suresh (A-2), Ashish (A-3) and Rajendra (A-4).
- under
4. These four accused faced prosecution for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 of
nder
the IPC.
E
5. In short, the prosecution case against these four appellants
under
was that on 26.05.1998, they attacked one person by name “Tej Singh”
he with axe and caused injuries to him on his body. The injuries were
cer, 2 abrasion, contusion, and one lacerated wound (see page 86 of appeal
paper book-Annexure- P/2 doctor’s opinion).
307/34, F
C 6. It is this incident which led to filing of FIR (No.83/1998) on
27.05.1998 by PW-4 Jaswir Singh against four accused in PS Haridwar-
under Laksar. The four appellants were accordingly apprehended and put to
trial. The Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, by order dated 16.03.2011,
- under
acquitted all the four appellants (accused).
7. The State and the Complainant felt aggrieved and filed leave to G
file appeals before the High Court seeking permission to question the
nder
legality and correctness of the order of the appellants’ acquittal. Leave
was granted. Naresh Kumar(A-1) also filed Criminal Appeal No.126 of
under 2011 before the High Court.
H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.

A 8. By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeals
filed by the Complainant and the State and set aside the order passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar and sentenced all the accused
persons for the offences punishable under various sections mentioned
supra.
B 9. However, taking into consideration the disease suffered by
Suresh(A-2), i.e., advanced stage of lung cancer, he was sentenced to
undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC. The
Court directed the State to admit him at Civil hospital, Roorkee for medical
treatment.
C 10. The appellants (accused) felt aggrieved by the judgment of
the High Court and filed these appeals by way of special leave in this
Court.
11. The short question, which arises for consideration in these
appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order
D of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and convicting the
appellants.
12. Heard Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain, learned senior counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondents.
E 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part
insofar as Suresh-Accused No.2 (appellant No. 2 herein) is concerned
and acquit him of the charges by restoring the order of the Additional
Sessions Judge.
F 14. So far as the remaining three accused- appellants are
concerned, namely, the appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4, we modify their
respective jail sentences awarded by the High Court mentioned above
and reduced to what they have already undergone and enhance the fine
amount awarded by the High Court, i.e., from Rs.7000/- to Rs.75,000/
- to each appellant.
G
15. This we are inclined to do for the following reasons.
16. First, the incident is of 1998 and we are in 2018. In other
words, it is now almost 20 years have passed that this litigation is pending
in various Courts.
H
NARESH v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 945
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

17. Second, there were seven injuries noticed by the doctor on A
the body of injured-Tej Singh but the injuries noticed were not very serious
in nature as would be clear from the Doctor’s report mentioned above.
18. Third, Tej Singh survived leaving no disability much less
permanent on his body due to causing of the injuries and lived for twenty
years after the date of alleged incident and died recently in last week as B
was stated by learned counsel for the appellants.
19. Fourth, all the appellants(accused) have undergone almost
one year of jail sentence including remission out of the total jail sentence
awarded by the High Court except appellant No.2 – Suresh(A-2), who
underwent around three months. C
20. Fifth, all the appellants were first offender and were not
found involved in any criminal activity in the last 20 years, though remained
on bail throughout and lastly, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are reported to be in
Government Service.
21. However, so far as the involvement of appellant Nos.1, 3 and D
4, in commission of offence in question, is concerned, we have perused
the findings of the High Court qua each and find that no case for
interference on such findings of fact though of reversal is called for by
this Court. In our view, it is just and proper and, therefore, we uphold the
finding of conviction of appellant Nos.1 , 3, and 4. E
22. For all these aforementioned reasons, which are relevant in
the facts of this case, we are inclined to interfere only in the quantum of
jail sentence awarded by the High Court and reduce their jail sentence
to the sentence already undergone and at the same time consider it just
and proper to enhance the fine amount imposed by the High Court on F
appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4.
23. So far as the case of appellant No.2 – Suresh(A-2) is
concerned, we have perused the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge,
which resulted in his acquittal, and also perused the finding of the High
Court which resulted in his conviction.
G
24. Having perused both the findings for deciding the role and
involvement of appellant No.2 – Suresh in the incident in question, we
are inclined to restore the finding of the Sessions Judge rather than that
of the High Court. In other words, we find that the role and involvement
of appellant No.2 - Suresh is not established beyond reasonable doubt
H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.

A while inflicting the injuries to Tej Singh and hence, in our view, appellant
No.2-Suresh deserves to be acquitted of the charges leveled against
him. He is on bail because he is reported to be suffering from lung
cancer.
25. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed
B and are allowed in part and the impugned judgment is modified as under:
26. The jail sentence awarded to appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 stands
modified and is accordingly reduced to already undergone. In other
words, the appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are not now required to undergo any
more jail sentence in connection with the offences in question.
C 27. However, as held above, appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 each of
them shall pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- by way of fine amount to the legal
representatives of late Tej Singh (victim) (total Rs.2,25,000/-) or deposit
the said sum (Rs.2,25,000/-) in the Court for being paid to the legal
representatives of late Tej Singh. The amount of Rs.2,25,000/- be
D deposited by appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 within three months from the date
of the order.
28. Failure to deposit the amount by anyone of the appellants
(Nos.1, 3 & 4) will revive the impugned judgment and in such event, the
defaulting appellant(s) will be taken into custody to undergo remaining
E jail sentence awarded by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
29. So far as appeal the appeal in respect of appellant No.2-Suresh
is concerned, it is allowed and the conviction of appellant No.2 stands
set aside. He is accordingly set free. His bail bonds are cancelled.
Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2018
F
In view of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395
of 2018, the appeal is disposed of.

Devika Gujral Appeals disposed of.
G

H