Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in House Trespass and Grievous Hurt Case: Altab Gharami vs. State of West Bengal (2017)

Date of the Judgment: July 27, 2017
Citation: 2017 INSC 681
Judges: Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.

Can a court reduce the sentence of a convicted person while also ensuring adequate compensation to the victim? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving house trespass and grievous hurt. The Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, emphasizing victim compensation. This judgment clarifies the balance between punishment and restorative justice in criminal cases. The bench consisted of Justices Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the judgment authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

On June 10, 2005, at approximately 9:00 PM, Altab Gharami and others threw brickbats at the tile-roofed house of Abdul Gaffar Dewan. When Abdul Gaffar Dewan’s father, Dalil Dewan, intervened, the accused, armed with sharp weapons, entered the house and assaulted Dalil Dewan, causing contusions and bleeding injuries. The accused also assaulted the mother, elder brother, and sister-in-law of Abdul Gaffar Dewan.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 456 (house-trespass by night), and 427 (mischief) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to imprisonment and fines. The High Court of Calcutta, upon appeal, altered the conviction to Sections 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and 456 read with 34 of the IPC, finding that the accused did not commit mischief or intend to commit murder.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code:

• Section 307, IPC: “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 456, IPC: “Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night.—Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 427, IPC: “Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.—Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 326, IPC: “Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—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 34, IPC: “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—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.”
• Section 320, IPC: “Grievous hurt.—The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:— First.—Emasculation. Secondly.—Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly.—Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, Fourthly.—Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly.—Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly.—Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly.—Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly.—Any hurt which endangers life, or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.”

These provisions are part of the Indian Penal Code, which defines criminal offenses and their punishments, ensuring a framework for criminal justice in India.

Arguments

The arguments presented in the judgment are not explicitly detailed. However, the High Court found that the appellants did not intend to commit murder (Section 307, IPC) or cause mischief (Section 427, IPC). The High Court concluded that the appellants had committed house trespass by night (Section 456, IPC) and caused grievous hurt (Section 326, IPC) by using dangerous weapons, with the common intention of all the accused (Section 34, IPC).

The Supreme Court, upon examining the facts, upheld the High Court’s findings regarding the offences under Sections 456 and 326 of the IPC. The Court also considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, particularly the severity of the injuries suffered by PW-2, who was hospitalized for ten days and later treated at another hospital.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue revolved around the appropriate sentence for the offences of house trespass and causing grievous hurt, while also considering the need for victim compensation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any previous cases or legal provisions other than the sections of the IPC. The court relied on the factual evidence and the findings of the lower courts to determine the conviction and modify the sentence.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Sections 456 and 326 of the IPC. However, it modified the sentence, reducing the imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 each for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for the offence under Section 456 of the IPC. The Court directed that the entire fine amount be paid to the injured party, Dalil Dewan, as compensation.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Section 307, IPC: The Court agreed with the High Court that there was no intention to commit murder, hence this section was not applicable.
• Section 456, IPC: The Court upheld the conviction for house trespass by night.
• Section 427, IPC: The Court agreed with the High Court that no mischief was committed, hence this section was not applicable.
• Section 326, IPC: The Court upheld the conviction for causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons.
• Section 34, IPC: The Court upheld the conviction based on the common intention of all the accused.
• Section 320, IPC: The Court used this section to determine that the injuries caused were grievous in nature.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the victim, Dalil Dewan, received adequate compensation for the grievous injuries he sustained. While the Court upheld the conviction, it reduced the sentence of imprisonment, balancing the need for punishment with the importance of restorative justice. The Court emphasized the severity of the injuries, including a skull fracture and finger impairment, which necessitated significant medical treatment for the victim. The Court also considered that the accused had used dangerous weapons, which aggravated the nature of the offence.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the assault, than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for house trespass and causing grievous hurt.
• ✓ The Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment while ensuring adequate compensation for the victim.
• ✓ This judgment emphasizes the importance of restorative justice in criminal cases.
• ✓ The Court considered the severity of injuries and the use of dangerous weapons in determining the sentence.
• ✓ The entire fine amount was directed to be paid to the injured party as compensation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the entire fine amount, if deposited, be paid to the injured Dalil Dewan (PW–2) as compensation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while upholding the conviction for offences of house trespass and causing grievous hurt, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance punishment with victim compensation. The Court modified the sentence to ensure that the victim receives adequate compensation, highlighting a focus on restorative justice within the criminal justice system. There was no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Altab Gharami vs. State of West Bengal reinforces the principle that while punishment is necessary, victim compensation is equally important. By upholding the conviction but modifying the sentence to include compensation, the Court has set a precedent for balancing punitive and restorative justice in criminal cases.