Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 325 IPC, Modifies Sentence: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Tribhuwan & Ors. (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 6 November 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 994

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a High Court completely remove a jail sentence and only impose a fine when someone is found guilty under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving a decades-old dispute. The core issue was whether the High Court was correct in modifying the sentence of an accused person by removing the jail term and only imposing a fine. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the mandatory nature of jail sentence along with fine under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case began on 14 June 1980, around 8:00 PM, when Tribhuwan was passing by Ram Lagan’s house. Ram Lagan’s dog started barking at Tribhuwan, which angered him. Tribhuwan started verbally abusing Ram Lagan, his son Shobh Nath, and other family members who were sitting outside their house. This led to a heated exchange between Tribhuwan and Ram Lagan and his son. Tribhuwan then threatened them and went home, only to return later with five other men, namely, Sita Ram, Ram Suresh, Ram Vijay, Rajendra, and Jogendra, all armed with weapons. This altercation resulted in injuries to Ram Lagan and Baij Nath (PW-2). Ram Lagan later died from his injuries in the hospital, while Baij Nath survived.

Following investigations, all six accused were put on trial for offenses punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324/149, and 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, on 22 January 1982, acquitted Jogendra but convicted the remaining five accused. Ram Vijay was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and other sections, while Tribhuwan, Sita Ram, Ram Suresh, and Rajendra were convicted under Sections 324/149, 325/149, and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The convicted individuals then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

The High Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the sentences. The High Court altered Ram Vijay’s conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and reduced the sentences for the other accused. Specifically, the High Court set aside the jail sentence for Tribhuwan and instead imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The State of Uttar Pradesh, dissatisfied with the High Court’s judgment, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. It states, “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” This means that both imprisonment and a fine are mandatory punishments for this offense.
• Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section allows for the setting off of the period of detention undergone by the accused against the sentence of imprisonment. It states, “Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him…” This means any time spent in jail before conviction will be deducted from the final jail sentence.

Arguments

Arguments by the State:

• The State argued that the Sessions Judge correctly convicted Tribhuwan under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment.
• The State contended that the High Court erred in setting aside the jail sentence and substituting it with only a fine of Rs. 10,000.
• The State emphasized that Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, mandates both imprisonment and a fine for the offense.
• The State submitted that while the High Court could reduce the jail term, it could not eliminate it entirely and impose only a fine.

Arguments by the Accused (Tribhuwan):

• Tribhuwan’s counsel argued that he had already served 40 days in jail as an under-trial prisoner and after his conviction by the Sessions Court.
• It was submitted that this 40-day imprisonment should be considered as his jail sentence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Tribhuwan’s counsel requested that he should receive the benefit of set-off for the 40 days under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The counsel also highlighted that the incident occurred in 1980 and 37 years had passed in litigation.
• It was also pointed out that both lower courts found that Tribhuwan did not cause any injury to the deceased or Baij Nath (PW-2).
• Tribhuwan’s counsel argued that maintaining his conviction with the 40-day jail term and the fine imposed by the High Court would meet the ends of justice.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether any case is made out by the State against accused person-Tribhuwan (respondent No.1) seeking any kind of interference in his order of conviction and acquittal or in award of sentence and, if so, to what extent?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, (2001) 6 SCC 311* to interpret Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the period of detention undergone by the accused during investigation, inquiry, or trial should be counted as part of the sentence imposed.
• The Court interpreted Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to mean that both imprisonment and fine are mandatory punishments for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• The Court interpreted Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to mean that the period of detention spent in jail as under-trial or as convict will be set off against his total jail sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of legal requirements and practical considerations. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of imprisonment under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while also taking into account the time the accused had already spent in jail and the long duration of the litigation. The Court was also influenced by the fact that both lower courts found that the accused did not cause any injury to the deceased or Baij Nath (PW-2). The Court aimed to strike a balance between upholding the law and ensuring that the punishment was proportionate to the circumstances.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the legal requirement of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which mandates both imprisonment and fine for the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The Court noted that the High Court had erred in setting aside the jail sentence entirely. However, the Court also took into account the fact that the accused had already served 40 days in jail, which could be set off against the sentence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also considered the long duration of the litigation and the findings of the lower courts that the accused did not directly cause the injuries. The Court then decided to uphold the conviction but modified the sentence to 40 days of imprisonment (already served) along with the fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Supreme Court considered the argument that the High Court could not have set aside the jail sentence entirely and imposed only a fine. The Supreme Court also considered the argument that the accused had already served 40 days in jail, which should be considered as part of his jail sentence. The court rejected the High Court’s decision to set aside the jail sentence entirely, holding that it was not permissible under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court also rejected the argument that the accused should not be given any jail sentence.

The majority opinion stated that the High Court had no jurisdiction to fully set aside the jail sentence and substitute it by imposing only a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The Court held that the High Court should have either upheld the award of jail sentence of four years awarded by the Sessions Court or reduced the jail sentence to any reasonable term. The Court also held that the period already undergone by the accused (40 days) was also a jail sentence and could be treated as jail sentence once awarded to the accused under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and accordingly its benefit by way of set off could be given to him under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Key Takeaways

• Mandatory Imprisonment: Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, mandates both imprisonment and a fine for the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. A High Court cannot set aside the jail sentence entirely and impose only a fine.
• Set-Off of Detention Period: The period of detention undergone by an accused during investigation, inquiry, or trial can be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on conviction, as per Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Balancing Act: The Supreme Court balanced the legal requirements with the practical considerations of time already served and the duration of the litigation.
• Implications: This judgment clarifies that High Courts must impose both imprisonment and fine under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and cannot substitute imprisonment with only a fine.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Sessions Court must verify whether the accused, Tribhuwan, has deposited the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the High Court. If the fine has been paid, he would not need to undergo any further jail sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when an accused is convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, both imprisonment and fine are mandatory punishments. The High Court cannot set aside the jail sentence entirely and impose only a fine. This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of the punishment prescribed under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and clarifies the limits of the High Court’s powers in modifying sentences. It also reaffirms the application of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in setting off the period of detention against the sentence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that while the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of Tribhuwan under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it erred in setting aside the jail sentence and imposing only a fine. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced Tribhuwan to imprisonment of 40 days (already served) along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, thereby ensuring compliance with the mandatory punishment requirement under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.