Supreme Court enhances fine for assault, considers peace purchase: State of Karnataka vs. Kaisarbaig & Ors. (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 02 February 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 78

Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Can a court enhance a sentence imposed by a High Court, even if the parties have reached a settlement and the accused have already served some jail time? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a criminal appeal, focusing on whether a fine was sufficient punishment for serious assault charges. The Court considered the High Court’s decision to reduce the sentence to a fine, taking into account the nature of injuries, the period of incarceration already served, and the fact that the parties had “purchased peace.” The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred in 2007, where the respondents-accused were charged with offences under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with a deadly weapon), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 149 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to three years of imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the accused appealed to the High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga. The High Court modified the conviction to offences under Sections 148 and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) read with Section 149 of the IPC. The High Court reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 3,000 each under Section 148 and Rs. 10,000 each under Section 324, with default sentences. The fine amount was directed to be paid to the victim, PW5.

The State of Karnataka, dissatisfied with the High Court’s judgment, appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a higher sentence for the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, sentencing them to three years of imprisonment. The accused then appealed to the High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga. The High Court, considering the nature of the injuries, converted the conviction to Sections 148 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 3,000 each under Section 148 and Rs. 10,000 each under Section 324, with default sentences. The High Court also directed that the fine amount be paid to the victim, PW5. The State of Karnataka, being aggrieved by the reduced sentence, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 147, IPC: “Punishment for rioting. —Whoever is guilty of rioting shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 148, IPC: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon. —Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 323, IPC: “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. —Whoever, except in the case provided by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Section 324, IPC: “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. —Whoever, except in the case provided by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 504, IPC: “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. —Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 307, IPC: “Attempt to murder. —Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”
• Section 149, IPC: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. —If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

Arguments

The State of Karnataka argued that the High Court’s reduction of the sentence to a mere fine was insufficient, considering the seriousness of the offences and the injuries caused. They contended that the accused should have been given a more substantial sentence, despite the fact that the parties had reached a settlement, and that the accused had undergone some jail time.

The respondents-accused argued that the High Court had correctly considered the fact that they had already spent some time in jail, and that the parties had “purchased peace.” They contended that the fine imposed by the High Court was sufficient punishment, given that the incident occurred in 2007 and that they had settled the matter with the victim.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence to a fine, considering the nature of the offences, the injuries caused, the fact that the parties had “purchased peace,” and the accused had already undergone some jail time?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its reasoning other than the provisions of the Indian Penal Code which were the basis of the charges. The Court’s decision was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the parties had settled the matter and the accused had already undergone some period of imprisonment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that the High Court’s punishment was too low, decided against further incarceration, considering that the respondents had already undergone some jail time, the incident occurred in 2007, and the parties had “purchased peace.”

The Court, however, enhanced the fine amount to Rs. 50,000, in addition to what had already been paid to the victim. This enhanced fine was to be paid to the victim, PW5, within three months, with the amount to be deposited in the trial court within two months. In the event of default, the respondents were to undergo imprisonment for three months.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors. The Court recognized the need for adequate punishment for the offences committed. However, it also considered the fact that the respondents had already spent some time in jail, the incident was old, and the parties had settled the matter, indicating a desire for closure and peace. The Court balanced these considerations by enhancing the fine amount instead of imposing further imprisonment.

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by the specific circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the parties had settled the matter and the accused had already undergone some period of imprisonment. The Court balanced the need for adequate punishment with the practical realities of the situation.

The Court stated, “though this Court is also of the view that the punishment, as ordered by the High Court, is too low, however, having regard to the fact that the respondents have already undergone some period in jail and taking note of the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2007 and since the parties have purchased peace, we are of the view, in the peculiar facts of this case, that no further sentence of incarceration needs to be imposed.”

The Court further stated, “However, the respondents-accused should be visited with a higher amount of fine, which shall be paid to the victim.”

Finally, the Court directed, “these appeals are disposed of, imposing a total fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) in addition to what has already been paid to the victim.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can enhance sentences imposed by High Courts even if the parties have settled the matter.
• Courts will consider the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused.
• The fact that parties have “purchased peace” can be a mitigating factor, but it does not automatically lead to a reduction in sentence.
• In cases where the court deems a sentence to be too low, it can enhance the fine amount to be paid to the victim.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents-accused to pay a total fine of Rs. 50,000 to the victim, PW5, in addition to what had already been paid. This amount was to be deposited in the trial court within two months, and the payment was to be made to the victim within three months. In the event of default, the respondents were to undergo imprisonment for three months.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that while the courts consider the settlement between parties and the period of incarceration already served, they also have the authority to enhance the punishment if the original sentence is deemed too low. This case clarifies that “purchasing peace” does not automatically lead to a reduction in sentence, and the court may impose a higher fine in lieu of further imprisonment. The ratio decidendi is that the court can enhance the punishment by imposing a higher fine if the original sentence is deemed too low, even if parties have settled the matter and the accused have already undergone some jail time.

Conclusion

In the case of State of Karnataka vs. Kaisarbaig & Ors., the Supreme Court, while acknowledging the High Court’s decision to reduce the sentence to a fine, found the punishment to be too low. The Supreme Court, however, did not impose further imprisonment, considering the past incarceration, the age of the incident, and the settlement between the parties. Instead, the Supreme Court enhanced the fine amount to Rs. 50,000, to be paid to the victim, reinforcing the principle that courts can enhance punishment even in cases where parties have settled and the accused have undergone some jail time.