Supreme Court Upholds Sentence for Grievous Hurt in 1988 Assault Case: Subhash Chander Bansal vs. Gian Chand and Ors. (25 January 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2018

Citation: Not Available in Source

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

Can a High Court’s decision to impose a sentence of time already served and a fine for grievous hurt be considered appropriate, especially when a significant amount of time has passed since the incident? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case stemming from a 1988 assault. The Court examined whether the High Court was correct in its sentencing decision for a conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, considering the long lapse of time and other factors. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

On July 29, 1988, at approximately 7:15 p.m., an incident occurred where Om Prakash and Ravinder Kumar sustained injuries from an assault with hockey sticks. Five individuals, Gian Chand, Krishan Kumar, Lachhman Dass, Bhagwan Dass, and Suresh Kumar, were accused of the assault and were subsequently prosecuted under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), and 149 (member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The First Information Report (FIR No. 128) was lodged on August 3, 1988, by Subhash Chander Bansal, the son of Om Prakash. The Trial Court acquitted all five accused persons on November 14, 1998. Aggrieved by this, both the State and the complainant, Subhash Chander Bansal, filed appeals in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The State filed Criminal Appeal No.494-DB of 1999 and the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 174 of 1999.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted all five accused persons on November 14, 1998. The State filed a criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No.494-DB of 1999), and the complainant, Subhash Chander Bansal, filed a criminal revision (Criminal Revision No. 174 of 1999) in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, both challenging the acquittal. The High Court partly allowed the State’s appeal, convicting Gian Chand, Krishan Kumar, Lachhman Dass, and Bhagwan Dass under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, it upheld the acquittal of Suresh Kumar, giving him the benefit of the doubt. The High Court sentenced the convicted individuals to the period of imprisonment they had already served as under-trials and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 to be shared equally by the four convicts, with Rs. 12,500 to be paid by each to the injured parties (Subhash Chander and Virender Kumar) as compensation. The complainant, dissatisfied with the High Court’s judgment, particularly the sentence, filed a special leave appeal in the Supreme Court. The State did not file any appeal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 307: This section deals with the offense of “attempt to murder.” It states, “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 325: This section pertains to the offense of “voluntarily causing grievous hurt.” It specifies, “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.”
• Section 34: This section defines “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.”
• Section 148: This section addresses “rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.” It states, “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 149: This section defines “every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object.” It states, “If an offense 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 offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense.”

Arguments

The complainant argued that the High Court erred in not convicting the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for attempt to murder, and that the sentence imposed was inadequate given the severity of the assault. The complainant contended that the injuries inflicted were severe and warranted a more stringent punishment than the period of imprisonment already undergone. The complainant also challenged the adequacy of the fine imposed, arguing it did not sufficiently reflect the gravity of the offense. The complainant sought a higher sentence and an increased fine.

The respondents, on the other hand, did not present any arguments before the Supreme Court as they were not the appellants. However, the High Court’s decision reflected their position that the offense was more appropriately categorized as grievous hurt under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than attempt to murder under Section 307. The High Court also considered the long lapse of time since the incident, the fact that the accused had already served time as under-trials, and that a fine had been imposed, which was considered adequate.

The innovativeness of the argument by the complainant lies in challenging the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the High Court, despite the passage of time since the incident. The complainant argued that the severity of the crime should outweigh the mitigating factor of time elapsed and that the High Court did not adequately consider the gravity of the injuries inflicted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court, having convicted the four accused persons under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified in imposing the sentence that was already undergone by them and by imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/- to be paid equally by the four convicted accused persons.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

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. The Court considered that the High Court had correctly applied this provision in convicting the accused.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines common intention in criminal acts. The Court noted that the High Court had rightly applied this section in conjunction with Section 325, holding each of the four accused equally liable.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the High Court was right in convicting the four accused persons under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and not under Section 307. The Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment that the case was essentially one of “grievous hurt” and not an attempt to murder. The Court also supported the High Court’s decision to impose a sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the accused, along with a fine of Rs. 50,000. The Supreme Court emphasized that the incident occurred in 1988, and by 2018, 30 years had elapsed. The Court also noted that one of the injured had passed away, and the injured were adequately compensated with the fine amount. The Supreme Court stated, “It is more so because, in addition, a fine of Rs.50,000/- was also awarded. This would meet the ends of justice.” The Court further stated, “Taking into account all these facts, which have emerged from the facts of the case, we find no reason to take a different view from that of the High Court, which does not call for any interference in this appeal.” The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the High Court’s judgment did not warrant any interference. The Court observed, “Moreover, it is the sole discretion of the Trial Court and, in this case, the High Court to decide the quantum of fine amount.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Lapse of Time: The Court emphasized that 30 years had passed since the incident in 1988, which significantly impacted the decision.
• Nature of Offence: The Court agreed with the High Court that the offense was correctly categorized as grievous hurt under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and not attempt to murder under Section 307.
• Compensation to Victims: The Court noted that the injured parties were adequately compensated with the fine amount of Rs. 50,000.
• Sentence Already Served: The Court considered that the accused had already served a reasonable period of imprisonment as under-trials.
• Discretion of Lower Courts: The Court respected the discretion of the High Court in determining the quantum of fine and sentence.

Key Takeaways

• Sentencing Discretion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s discretion in sentencing, particularly when a significant amount of time has passed since the incident.
• Importance of Time Lapse: The passage of time is a crucial factor in determining the appropriateness of a sentence. Courts may consider the time elapsed since the offense when deciding on the punishment.
• Compensation: The compensation provided to the victims is a significant factor in determining the adequacy of the sentence.
• Grievous Hurt vs. Attempt to Murder: The judgment highlights the distinction between Section 325 (grievous hurt) and Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court emphasized that the facts of the case did not justify a conviction for attempt to murder.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court’s decision to impose a sentence of imprisonment already undergone and a fine for a conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified, considering the long lapse of time since the incident, the nature of the offense, and the compensation provided to the victims. There was no significant change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the passage of time and the specific facts of the case when determining the appropriate sentence.

Conclusion

In the case of Subhash Chander Bansal vs. Gian Chand and Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to sentence the accused to the period of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 50,000 for causing grievous hurt under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court considered the long lapse of time since the incident, the nature of the offense, and the compensation provided to the victims. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment.