reduction of sentence= firstly, taking into account that the appellant has already undergone one month’s jail sentence out of three months awarded to him, secondly, the fact that the incident in question is quite old and seems to have occurred at the spur of the moment, thirdly, the appellant has no criminal antecedent in his past life and lastly, he is not required in any other criminal case except the one in question which the appellant fairly did not deny having committed and rightly did not challenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and proper to alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from three months to the extent of period of one month which was already undergone by him and instead enhance the total fine amount awarded under different Sections from Rs.800/­ to Rs.15,000/

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7414 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1118 of 2018)
(D.No.27815 of 2018)
Haribhau            ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent(s)
               
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Criminal
Appeal No.258 of 2006 whereby the High Court while
allowing   the   appeal   with   respect   to   other   accused1
Babarao   Shriram   Chaudhary   dismissed   the   appeal
with respect to the appellant herein and confirmed his
conviction   and   sentence   awarded   to   him   by   order
dated 10.04.2006 passed by the 3rd Ad­hoc Additional
Sessions Judge, Washim in Atrocities Case No.28 of
2005 by which the appellant and Babarao had been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
353, 294 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and
had directed them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
three months with fine of Rs.500/­   under Section
353/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month
with fine of Rs.200/­ under Section 504/34 IPC and
rigorous   imprisonment   for   one   month   with   fine   of
Rs.100/­ under Section 294/34 IPC.  All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
2
3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that Bala
Saheb Ingole (PW­1) was serving as a teacher in Zilla
Parishad Primary School at Januna, Tahsil Karanja
District Washim (MH). On 05.04.2005, the appellant
(Haribhau)   and   Babarao,   who   were   Sarpanch   and
Member of the Gram Panchayat, Januna respectively
visited the School and asked Bala Saheb as to why he
came   late   in   the   School.   Bala   Saheb   offered   his
explanation.
4. The explanation offered by Bala Saheb did not
satisfy   the   appellant   and   Babarao,   therefore,   they
asked   Bala   Saheb   for   book   of   circle­in­charge
maintained by the School. Since Bala Saheb did not
give the book, the appellant (Haribhau) caught hold of
his   shirt's  collar  and   while   using  abusive  language
gave kicks and blows to him. They also gave threat to
Bala Saheb for causing injuries endangering his life.
3
5. It is this incident which gave rise to lodging of
FIR   which   was   followed   by   the   prosecution   of   the
appellant (Haribhau) and Babarao for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 294
read with Section 34 of IPC and in addition under
Section   3(1)(x)   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   and   the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”).
6. By   order   dated   10.04.2006,   the   Additional
Sessions Judge, Washim convicted the appellant and
Babarao for the offences punishable under Sections
353, 504 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC and
awarded   the   sentences   mentioned   above.   The
appellant and Babarao were, however, acquitted for
commission of the offence punishable under Section 3
(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act.
4
7.   The appellant and Babarao felt aggrieved by the
order   of   conviction   and   sentence   and   filed   appeal
before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. By
impugned order, the High Court allowed the appeal
with respect to Babarao and acquitted him of all the
charges leveled against him.
8. So far as the appellant (Haribhau) is concerned,
his   appeal   was   dismissed.   In   other   words,   the
appellant's conviction and the sentence awarded by
the Additional Sessions Judge was upheld giving rise
to   filing   of   this   appeal   by   way   of   special   leave   by
Haribhau in this Court.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant
was essentially one. According to him, out of total jail
sentence   awarded   to   the   appellant,   he   has   already
5
undergone one month actual jail sentence and since
then he is on bail.
11. It was his submission that having regard to the
nature of the offence committed by the appellant, his
age (60 years), his spotless career throughout without
any criminal antecedents and lastly, the fact that he
has   already   undergone   one   month   jail   sentence   in
relation to the offence committed 13 years back, hence
this Court while upholding the appellant’s conviction
may consider proper to alter the sentence awarded to
the appellant and reduce it to the extent the period
already undergone in jail by him and instead impose
more fine on him to meet the ends of justice.
12. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent­State
urged for upholding of the impugned order.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force
6
in   the   submission   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant.
14. In   our   considered   opinion,   firstly,   taking   into
account that the appellant has already undergone one
month’s  jail sentence out of three months awarded to
him, secondly, the fact that the incident in question is
quite old and seems to have occurred at the spur of
the moment, thirdly, the appellant has no criminal
antecedent   in   his   past   life   and   lastly,   he   is   not
required in any other criminal case except the one in
question   which   the   appellant   fairly   did   not   deny
having committed   and rightly did not challenge his
conviction, it is considered to be just and proper to
alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from
three months to the extent of period of one month
which   was   already   undergone   by   him   and   instead
7
enhance the total fine amount awarded under different
Sections from Rs.800/­ to Rs.15,000/­.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The jail
sentence awarded to the appellant by the Courts below
is altered and is accordingly reduced to the extent of
period of one month which already undergone by him.
16. In other words, the appellant is now not required
to   serve   any   more   jail   sentence   than   what   he   has
already undergone and at the same time the amount of
the total fine awarded by the Courts below is enhanced
from Rs.800/­ to Rs.15,000/­   for being paid to the
complainant­ Bala Saheb Ingole.
17.   Failure to deposit the fine amount within one
month   would   result   in   reviving   the   jail   sentence
awarded by the Courts below and the appellant will
8
have   to   then   undergo   the   remaining   jail   sentence
awarded by the Courts below.
18. Let   the   amount   of   fine   be   deposited   by   the
appellant in Trial Court within one month from the
date of this order for being paid to the Complainant.

      ………...................................J.
       [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
         
                       
     …...……..................................J.
                 [UDAY UMESH LALIT]
New Delhi;
September 04, 2018
9