Revising Court dismissed appeal against conviction but reduced sentence to time already undergone due to 16-year delay. Court awarded Rs.1,00,000 compensation to victim under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and confirmed fine.
Sentence reduced to time served; compensation of Rs.1,00,000 awarded to PW-1.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.226 of 2010
ORDER:
This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 04.02.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.72 of 2009 on the file of XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. in the judgment dated 18.02.2009 in C.C.No.255 of 2008 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum- Senior Civil Judge, Repalle.
a. On 29.02.2008 at about 6.30 a.m. While the defacto
complainant was going to conserve dung at dung heap and reached near the house of the petitioner/accused, the petitioner/ accused came towards him by uttering that he was responsible to set fire his paddy heap and he would not leave him without causing death, hacked with a knife
2
(Erukula Katti) on his ribs towards left side and caused bleeding injury. When the defacto complainant caught hold knife with his left hand, then the petitioner/accused hauled knife forcibly from his hand, due to which he sustained bleeding injuries on his index, ring, and little fingers. The petitioner/accused again hacked on his left thigh with the same knife and caused bleeding injury. When the wife and daughter of the defacto complainant came to rescue, the petitioner/accused pushed his wife aside and hacked him on his left elbow with same knife and caused bleeding injury.
b. On hearing cries, one Matti Venkateswara Rao and Matti Krishna Murthi rushed to the scene. On seeing them, the petitioner/accused went away threatening him. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station, recorded the statement of the defacto complainant and registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2008 and investigating into. After investigation, police filed charge sheet.
3
4
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.
1 (2012) 3 SCC 221
5
the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to the victim who has suffered by the action of accused. The learned counsel also concedes to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the victim by way of compensation.
“Whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court i.e. XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur at Tenali?”
6
reached the house of accused, the accused hacked him with a knife on his left side of the ribs. When the accused tried to haul the knife forcibly from the left hand of the defacto complainant he sustained bleeding injury on his index finger, ring finger and little finger. When his wife intervened, he pushed her aside and hacked him with the same knife on his left elbow. PW.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who seized MO.3/Sickle from the possession of accused.
7
not known. But PW-2 confirmed that her husband (PW-1) sustained injuries on his left finger and left rib.
“21. In embarking upon the minutest reexamination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 CrPC. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004 [Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav]. That was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.
22.The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 410 CrPC. Section 401 CrPC is a provision enabling the High Court to
2 (2004) 7 SCC 659
8
exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 CrPC confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be,"for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court."
It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 CrPC conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 CrPC, read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power.”
9
again in revision and it should be self-restraint while exercising the revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
10
the guilty of the accused and this court is unable to find any other angle to view the matter in this revision.
in Pramod Kumar Mishra v State of Uttar Pradesh3 ,
wherein it was held that:
“The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defence. Therefore, a therapeutic, rather than an “in terrorem” outlook, should prevail in
3 (2023) 9 SCC 810
11
criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. Further, a proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances – extenuating or aggravating – of the offence, the prior criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the offender, the record of the offender as to employment, the background of the offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental conditions of the offender, the prospects for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of the offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of treatment or training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need, if any, for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence. These factors have to be taken into account by the Court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence”.
38. The Court granted a similar benefit to a convict under Section 325 who had been sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Court in addition invoked its power under Section 357 Cr.P.C to award compensation to the victim and determined the amount payable having regard to the nature of
12
the injury inflicted and the paying capacity of the appellant.
In which at para 38, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“10. Sub-Section (1) of the Section 357 provides power to award compensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused. It empowers the court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused”. “11. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by considering the mature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay”.
and others v State of Uttarakhand and others4 , which
was held:
14. This we are inclined to do for the following reasons:
14.1. First, the incident is of 1998 and we are in 2018. In other words, it is almost 20 years
4 (2018) 6 SCC 404
13
have passed that this litigation is pending in various courts.
14.2. ……..
14.3. Third, Tej Singh survived leaving no disability much less permanent on his body due to causing of the injuries and lived for twenty years after the date of alleged incident and died recently in last week as was stated by the learned counsel for the appellants.
14.4. Fourth, all the appellant-accused have undergone almost one year of jail sentence including remission out of the total jail sentence awarded by the High Court except Appellant 2. Suresh (A-2), who underwent around three months.
14.5. Fifth, all the appellants, were first offender and were not found involved in any criminal activity in the last 20 years, though remained on bail throughout and lastly, appellants 2 and 3 are reported to be in government service.
14
permanent disability of accused due to causing of injuries said to be caused by petitioner/accused. In the above referred case, he undergone almost one year of jail sentence. In the present case, the petitioner/accused had undergone sentence of four and half (4 ½) months.
Singh v State of Haryana5 , wherein it was held:
“We are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.
The accused has already undergone more than four months imprisonment and keeping in view the fact that there is so much delay in disposing of this case, we alter the sentence imposed by the High Court to the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant”.
lose sight of the fact that the occurrence took place more
than a quarter of century back and to send the accused to
prison after 25 years would be travesty of justice.
5 (2019) SCC Online SC 1953
15
16
the said compensation to the victim by invoking the provisions under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 08.12.2023 KNN
17
286
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.226 of 2010
DATE: 08.12.2023
KNN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial Court confirmed by the appellate Court?
Whether the High Court can interfere with the sentence considering the delay of 16 years and principles laid down in Supreme Court judgments?
Whether compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. should be awarded to the victim?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Roy Fernandes v State of GoaFollowed¶19
Roy Fernandes v State of Goa, (2012) 3 SCC 221 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh AnandFollowed¶33
State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 · Who else cites this
Pramod Kumar Mishra v State of Uttar PradeshDistinguished¶50
Pramod Kumar Mishra v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 9 SCC 810 · Who else cites this
Naresh and others v State of Uttarakhand and othersDistinguished¶63
Naresh and others v State of Uttarakhand and others, (2018) 6 SCC 404 · Who else cites this
Mohinder Singh v State of HaryanaFollowed¶78
Mohinder Singh v State of Haryana, (2019) SCC Online SC 1953 · Who else cites this
Ram Briksh v. Ambika YadavReferred¶34
Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav, Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Revision Petitioner/Accused
State
V. Srinivas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
