Penal Code, 1860 – s.325/34 – Prosecution case was that respondents-accused caused injuries to two persons with hockey – Trial court acquitted all the five accused persons – High Court allowed the State’s appeal in part and convicted the four accused persons under s.325 r/w s.34, imposing the sentence that was already undergone by them and fine of Rs.50,000 to be paid equally by the four convicted accused persons – Acquittal of one accused was upheld by giving him benefit of doubt – Held: The finding of the High Court regarding conviction of respondents under s.325 was based on proper appreciation of entire prosecution evidence – As regards the sentence, High Court was of the opinion that the respondents have already undergone some reasonable length of jail sentence as under-trials and the same was sufficient, more so since in addition, a fine of Rs.50,000/- was also awarded – No reason to take a different view from that of the High Court – The injured were duly compensated with the fine of Rs.50,000/- – Interference with impugned order not called for.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the first place, the High Court convicted four accused persons under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. This finding of the High Court is based on proper appreciation of entire prosecution evidence and there is no find any reason to disturb it for convicting the respondents under Section 325 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. [Paras 10, 11][270-C, D]
2. So far as the awarding of sentence for an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned, the High Court was of the opinion that the respondents have already undergone some reasonable length of jail sentence as under-trials and the same appears to be sufficient. The incident in question occurred as far back as in 1988. 30 years have elapsed. Secondly, in the meantime, one injured also expired. Thirdly, the injured were duly compensated with the amount of fine of Rs.50,000/-. The quantum of fine awarded in 1988 or so appears to be just and reasonable. Moreover, it is the sole discretion of the Trial Court and, in this case, the High Court to decide the quantum of fine amount. There is no reason to take a different view from that of the High Court, which does not call for any interference in this appeal. [Paras 12-15][270-E-H; 271-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.