Bijender Papu and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dipak Misra
Shiva Kirti Singh
Judgment Date: 2016-06-03
Court Decision / Holding: The Court reduced the sentence for the main offence under Section 325/149 IPC from five years RI to three years RI for both appellants, while maintaining the conviction and sentences for the remaining offences and leaving the fines intact. The appeal is disposed of.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bijender Papu
Anr.

Respondents

State of Haryana

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sanjay Suri
• Pankaj Kumar
• Rishabh Relan
• Ms. Varsha Rana
• Ms. Rinku Mishra
• Satpal Singh

Counsels for Respondents

• Vishwa Pal Singh
• Dr. Sanjay Gupta

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment concerns five co-accused convicted for offences under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC and other allied sections (148A, 308/149, 323/149) arising from a 1997 dispute over a drain in which the parties clashed. The Trial Court sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fines; Rs. 70,000 was directed as compensation to the injured Budhram. The High Court, while maintaining convictions on minor offences, enhanced the main offence sentence to five years and imposed fines, with three co-accused released on probation due to their extreme old age (75–85 years). The appellants challenged the outcome, arguing parity with the co-accused who received leniency and stressing the long 19-year trial as well as the similarity of roles. The Court held that parity claims were misconceived, noting that the three acquiesced co-accused were treated primarily for age and not as a general rule. The injury to Budhram, a sole head injury causing his inability to depose, did not reveal a specific role for any convict. On consideration of the broader facts and circumstances, the Court reduced the period of sentence under Section 325/149 IPC for the two appellants from five to three years RI, while keeping the fines and other sentences intact. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 325/149 IPCSection 148A IPCSection 308/149 IPCSection 323/149 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued parity with other co-accused who received probation due to extreme old age, contending identical roles and the long duration of the trial warranted similar leniency; they asserted that all five shared a similar set of circumstances, and the absence of a precise role for any one convict warranted fair consideration.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the High Court’s enhancement of the main-offence sentence, emphasizing the injury to Budhram’s head and the genesis of the dispute, arguing for deterrence and an appropriate punishment given the gravity of the main offence.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2016) 3 S.C.R. 513 BIJENDER _(fiJ_ PAPU AND ANR. A v. ## STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 463of2016) JUNE03,2016 B ## [DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, JJ.] _Penal Code, 1860_ - _ss. 3251149, 148A, 3081149 and 3231 149_ - _Claim of parity_ - _Conviction of five persons u/ss.3251149, 148A, 3081149 and 3231149 and sentenced to RI for three years with fine for major offence and lesser sentences for remaining offences_ - _High Court enhanced the sentence to RI for five years for the major offences_ - _Three of them released on probution of good conduct_ - _Claim of parity by appellants_ - _On appeal, held: Trial was 19 years old and concession was shown to other three coaccused due to their extreme old age_ - _High Court enhanced the sentence on account of sole head injury suffered by the victim but the victim was unable to depose due to his condition and as such no jpecjfic role cmt!d be assigned to any of the convicts_ - _Considering the other facts and circumstances, the period of sentence reduced from five years to, three years RI for the offences uls. 3251149 JPC_ - _However, the amount of fine and conviction and sentence for_ - _other offences maintained Sentence/Sentencing._ c D E ## Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: The concession shown to other three convicts was mainly on the ground of their extreme old age and the special treatment was justified. The parity claimed by the appellants is misconceived .The High Court enhanced the sentence from three years to five years RI for the main offence because of the suffering of the injured 'B' on account of the sole bead injury caused by Iatbi. 'B' was brought to court but was unable to depose because of mental impairment suffered by him. Had the prosecution witnesses been able to pinpoint the accused who caused the bead injury on 'B', be would have been treated to be responsible of a graver offence meriting higher punishment but unff}rtunately no sncb specific role were assigned to any of the five convicts. Considering the other facts and circumstances, particularly the 513 F G H 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) 3 S.C.R. A genesis of the occurrence, the period of sentence is reduced from five years to three years RI for the offences u/s. 325/149 IPC in · respect of both the appellants. However, the amount of fine and conviction and sentence for other. offences are left intact. [Para 4] [515-C-FJ . B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 463 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 1190-SB of2000. c Sanjay Suri, Pankaj Kumar, Rishabh Relan, Ms. Varsha Rana, Ms. Rinku Mishra, Satpal Singh, Advs. for the Appellants. Vishwa Pal Singh, Dr. San jay Gupta, Ad vs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D D SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. This criminal appeal arises from a special leave petition in which notice was issued solely on the question of sentence. From that point of view, it is necessary to keep in mind only the relevant broad feature~ of the prosecution case that were accepted by the trial court leading to conviction Of the two appellants as well as three others under Section 325 read with Section 149 and under Sections E 148A, 308/149 and 323/149 of the IPC. The Trial Court imposed punishment of rigorous imprisonment for th~ee years alongwith a fine of Rs.12,000/- each 'for the offence under Section 308/149 and lesser sentences including fines for the remaining offences. Rs.70,000/- out ·of the fine amount was ordered to be paid to the injured Budhram by F way of compensation. The High Court heard the appeal of all the five convicts against their coqviction and sentence together with a criminal revision filed on behalf of the .injured B.udhram for converting the conviction of all forthe offence under Section 307 IPC and for enhanced punishment. The High Court considered the materials in detail and held the appellants as well as other three co-accused gtii lty of offence G punishable cmly under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. While maintaining the convicti01i and sentence for the other minor offences, the High Court, for the' aforesaid major offence enhanced the sentence to RI for five years and.fine ofRs.20,000/- each and in default the concerned convict has to undergo further imprisonment H, . for a period . . of 011e Year. 515 BIJENDER@ PAPU AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 2. On behalf of the appellants it has been highlighted that the other three co-accused who were convicted for similar offences were ordered by the High Court to be released on probation of good conduct for the term of imprisonment. Although such relief was gr;mted to those three co-accused mainly on consideration of their old age varying between 85 to 75 years, the appellants claim parity on account of similar role assigned to all the five convicts. A B 3. It was also highlighted that the occurrence is of 1997 and the ordeal of long trial has been faced by the appellants for about 19 years. 4. The parity claimed by the appellants is misconceived. The concession shown to other three convicts was mainly on the ground of their extreme old age and that in our view justified the special treatment extended in their case. The High Court enhanced the sentence from . three years to five years RI for the main offence because it was concerned and moved by the suffering of the injured Budhram on account of the sole head injury caused by lathi. Budhram was brought to court but was unable to depose because of mental impairment suffered by him. Had the prosecution witnesses been able to pinpoint the accused who caused the head injury on Budhram, we would have definitely treated him to be responsible of a graver offence meriting higher punishment but unfortunately no such specific role has been assigned to any of the five convicts. In such a situation, considering the other facts and circumstances, particularly the genesis of the occurrence which was on account of a dispute between the parties over a right to have a drain in a passage, we are persuaded to reduce the period of sentence for the offences under Section 325 read with Section 149 ofthe!PC in respect of both the appellants from five years to three years RI. However, the amount of fine artd conviction and sentence for other offences are left intact. c D E F 5. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence of the appellants, .the Appeal is disposed of. G Nidhi Jain Appeal disposed of.