LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, October 1, 2011

whether the sentence awarded to the appellants needs to be reduced and, if so, to what extent.=Even appellant no.1 is not alleged to have used any force against the constable in the incident in question. The incident itself is nearly ten years old by now. Keeping in view all these circumstances and the fact that Hussain Ibrahim Siddi accused no.1 who was mainly responsible for the grievous injury caused to the constable has already served the sentence awarded to him, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the sentence awarded to the appellants is modified and reduced to the sentence already undergone by them. « advocatemmmohan

REPORTABLE



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION



CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1879 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5562 of 2011)




Nasib Hussain Siddi & Ors. ...Appellants



Versus



State of Gujarat ...Respondent





O R D E R



T.S. THAKUR, J.






1. Leave granted.





2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High


Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby conviction of the


appellants for offences punishable under Sections 325,


506(2), 333, 342 and 114 IPC has been affirmed and the -


1

sentence reduced to imprisonment for a period of 1=


years.





3. When the special leave petition came up for


admission, this Court by its order dated 1st August, 2011


issued notice to the respondents only on the question of


sentence. We are not, therefore, examining the validity of


the order of conviction which both the Courts below have


passed on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record.


The only question on which we have heard learned counsel


for the parties is whether the sentence awarded to the


appellants needs to be reduced and, if so, to what extent.


4. The genesis of the case of the appellants lies in an


incident that took place on 7th September, 2003 at village


Chitrod in the District of Kutch, State of Gujarat. The


complainant in the case was, during the relevant period, a


Constable posted at Chitrod outpost of Police Station


Bhimasar. The prosecution case is that at about 10.30 a.m.


on 7th September, 2003 when the complainant was on


patrol duty, he found one Babubhai quarrelling in public


place with one Hussain Ibrahim Siddi, accused no.1. The -

2

constable appears to have accosted the quarrelling duo and


asked them as to why they were disturbing peace and


ordered them to accompany him to the police station. This


appears to have infuriated Hussain Ibrahim Siddi who


caught hold of the Constable from his collar and pushed


him. In the meantime the son, wife and mother of Hussain


Ibrahim Siddi also appear to have joined Hussain Ibrahim


Siddi, exchanged hot words with constable and prevented


him from taking Hussain Ibrahim Siddi to the Police Station.


It was on those allegations that Hussain Ibrahim and the


appellants were tried together for the offences mentioned


earlier.




5. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 13


witnesses to support its case. The depositions of these


witnesses were found reliable by the Trial Court resulting in


the conviction of Hussain Ibrahim for the offence


punishable under Section 325 and sentence of five years RI


besides a fine of Rs.500/-. In default he was directed to


undergo a further sentence of six months. He was also





3

convicted under Section 506(2) of the IPC and sentenced to


-


undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine


of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment


for a period of six months. Hussain Ibrahim was in addition


convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years and


a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 333 and in default to


undergo further imprisonment of six months. Imprisonment


for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.100/- was awarded


to him under Section 342 of the IPC and in default to


undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month.





6. In so far as the appellants Hussain Siddi, Malubai wife


of Ibrahim Siddi and Hawabai wife of Hussain Ibrahim are


concerned, the Trial Court found them also to be guilty of


offences punishable under Sections 333 of the IPC and


sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a


period of three years and a fine of Rs.200/-. Malubai


accused no.3 and appellant before us was also in addition


convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a


period of three years under Section 506(2) IPC apart from

4

a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine she was


sentenced to undergo six months further imprisonment.


-


7. Aggrieved by the orders of conviction and sentence


the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court of


Gujarat at Ahmedabad who has while upholding the


conviction of the appellants reduced the sentence awarded


to all of them to 1= years instead of three years.




7. It is common ground that the appellants, two of whom


happen to be females had not physically assaulted the


constable. Even appellant no.1 is not alleged to have used


any force against the constable in the incident in question.


The incident itself is nearly ten years old by now. Keeping in


view all these circumstances and the fact that Hussain


Ibrahim Siddi accused no.1 who was mainly responsible for


the grievous injury caused to the constable has already


served the sentence awarded to him, we are of the opinion


that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the


sentence awarded to the appellants is modified and reduced


to the sentence already undergone by them.



5

-


8. We order accordingly. The appellants shall be set at


liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. The


appeal is allowed to the above extent.







...................................J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH)





...................................J.

(T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi

September 28, 2011





6


whether the sentence awarded to the appellants needs to be reduced and, if so, to what extent.=Even appellant no.1 is not alleged to have used any force against the constable in the incident in question. The incident itself is nearly ten years old by now. Keeping in view all these circumstances and the fact that Hussain Ibrahim Siddi accused no.1 who was mainly responsible for the grievous injury caused to the constable has already served the sentence awarded to him, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the sentence awarded to the appellants is modified and reduced to the sentence already undergone by them. « advocatemmmohan