Supreme Court Enhances Sentence in Assault Case: Sahebrao Arjun Hon vs. Raosaheb & Ors. (2022)

Date of the Judgment: September 6, 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 777

Judges: Surya Kant, J., Abhay S. Oka, J.

Can a High Court reduce a sentence imposed by a trial court for serious assault without adequate justification? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, examining the extent of revisional jurisdiction and the principles of sentencing. This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that reduced the sentence of individuals convicted of assault, including grievous hurt. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

On March 26, 1992, at approximately 6:30 PM, the appellant, Sahebrao Arjun Hon, visited a pan shop owned by accused no. 11. After getting his tractor repaired, he went to the shop, where accused no. 11 objected to his association with one Vithobanana, calling Vithobanana a beggar. The appellant defended Vithobanana, stating he was a relative. Accused no. 7 (respondent no. 1), Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon, arrived, leading to an exchange of words. Arjun Dada Hon (PW-8), another victim, intervened to pacify the situation. Accused no. 11 then grabbed PW-8’s collar and abused him. When the appellant intervened, he was slapped by accused no. 11. The incident ended with everyone dispersing.

Later that day, around 7-7:30 PM, the appellant and PW-8 were sitting on a platform in front of their house, joined by PW-5 Karna and his son. Around 8-8:30 PM, respondents no. 1 to 4 arrived and began abusing the appellant and PW-8. Respondent no. 1 was carrying a stick and struck the appellant on the head. Respondent no. 2 used a scythe to attack the appellant on his neck and back. PW-8 was also assaulted with sticks. Sachin (PW-9) and Madhukar (PW-4) sustained minor injuries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted respondents 1 to 4 under Sections 326, 324, and 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Trial Court sentenced them to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000 each for the offense under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Sessions Court upheld this conviction and sentence. However, the High Court, in its judgment dated December 19, 2016, while upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence for the offense under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC to one year of rigorous imprisonment. For the offense under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the High Court let them off with the sentence already undergone. The High Court also directed respondents 1, 2, and 4 to pay Rs. 20,000 each to the victims as compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Legal Framework

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

• Section 326, IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states, “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous 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 for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 324, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states, “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 447, IPC: Punishment for criminal trespass. It states, “Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”
• Section 34, IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

The judgment also refers to Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with victim compensation schemes.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the appellant and PW-8.
• The appellant suffered 11 injuries, including a depressed fracture on the left parietal region, and life-threatening injuries on the left parietal region and left side of the neck.
• The medical evidence and the testimony of Dr. Vijay Gyanba Kshirsagar (PW-12) confirmed the serious condition of the appellant when he was brought for treatment.
• There was no valid reason for the High Court to reduce the substantive sentence to one year.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents’ counsel submitted that if the Supreme Court was inclined to consider the appellant’s submissions on merits, the revision application should be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration.
• The counsel argued that the High Court only considered the alternative submission for reducing the sentence and not the merits of the conviction itself.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the substantive sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offense under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any cases or books. However, it does refer to the following legal provisions:

• Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 447, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with criminal trespass.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 357A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with victim compensation schemes.

Authority Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court emphasized the gravity of the offense under Section 326, IPC, noting that it provides for imprisonment for life. The court considered the nature of the serious injuries sustained by the appellant while deciding on the sentence.
• Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court considered the nature of the offense while deciding on the sentence.
• Section 447, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court considered the nature of the offense while deciding on the sentence.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court applied Section 34 of the IPC to hold all the respondents liable for the acts done in furtherance of their common intention.
• Section 357A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Court referred to Section 357A of the CrPC while directing the respondents to pay additional compensation to the victims.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Seriousness of Injuries: The Court noted that the appellant suffered 11 injuries, including a depressed fracture on the left parietal region, and that his condition was serious when admitted to the hospital. The court considered the life-threatening nature of the injuries.
• Lack of Mitigating Circumstances: The High Court did not record any mitigating circumstances in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is the duty of the Court to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances while imposing a sentence.
• Unprovoked Attack: The Court found that there was no provocation for the respondents to attack the appellant and other victims. The respondents came prepared with weapons, indicating a premeditated assault.
• Lenient Sentence by Trial Court: The Trial Court had already taken a lenient view by imposing a sentence of only three years for the offense under Section 326 of the IPC, despite the maximum sentence being imprisonment for life.
• Need for Proportionality: The Court emphasized the principle of proportionality in sentencing, stating that undue sympathy by reducing the sentence to the minimum may adversely affect the faith of people in the efficacy of law.
• Revisional Jurisdiction: While the High Court has revisional jurisdiction, it should not reduce the sentence without proper justification, especially when the Trial Court’s sentence was already lenient.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment and directed that:

• In addition to the substantive sentence imposed by the High Court for the offense under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the respondents 1, 2, and 4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
• The respondents 1, 2, and 4 shall surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks from the date of the judgment to undergo the additional six months of simple imprisonment.
• The respondents 1, 2, and 4 shall deposit a total sum of Rs. 40,000 with the Trial Court within one month from the date of the judgment.
• The additional compensation shall be equally distributed to the appellant and Arjun Dada Hon (PW-8).

The Court stated, “Perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that there is no finding recorded regarding the existence of any relevant mitigating circumstance in favour of the respondent nos.1,2 and 4.”

The Court further noted, “The maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is imprisonment for life. Even after considering the nature of the serious injuries sustained by the appellant, the Trial Court took a lenient view by imposing sentence of imprisonment of only 3 years.”

The Court also observed, “Looking to the gravity of the offence, there was no warrant for showing leniency.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts should not reduce sentences imposed by Trial Courts for serious offenses without proper justification, especially when the Trial Court’s sentence was already lenient.
• The Court reiterated the importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances while imposing a sentence.
• The seriousness of injuries sustained by the victim is a critical factor in determining the appropriate sentence.
• Unprovoked and premeditated attacks warrant stricter sentences.
• The principle of proportionality in sentencing must be followed to maintain faith in the efficacy of the law.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• Respondents 1, 2, and 4 to undergo an additional six months of simple imprisonment.
• Respondents 1, 2, and 4 to surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks.
• Respondents 1, 2, and 4 to deposit Rs. 40,000 as additional compensation within one month.
• The officer in charge of Kopargaon Police Station to ensure the additional compensation is distributed equally to the appellant and Arjun Dada Hon (PW-8).

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that sentencing should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case. It clarifies that High Courts should not exercise their revisional jurisdiction to reduce sentences without valid reasons, especially in cases involving serious injuries and unprovoked attacks. The judgment also emphasizes the need to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances while imposing sentences.

Conclusion

In the case of Sahebrao Arjun Hon vs. Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon & Ors., the Supreme Court enhanced the sentence of the respondents, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the lack of mitigating circumstances. The judgment underscores the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for High Courts to exercise their revisional jurisdiction judiciously. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the punishment fits the crime, thereby upholding the principles of justice.