Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.       395     OF 2009 [Arising 0ut of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8116 OF 2007]

Karipi Rasheed

                           .....           Appellant

Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh                     ..... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh   Panta  , J.   

1. Karipi Rasheed A-1 and Naazar Ahmed A-2 have filed this leave to appeal

against the judgment and order dated 13.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature,

Andhra  Pradesh  at  Hyderabad in  Criminal  Revision  Case  No.  512 of  2004.   By the

impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge confirmed the conviction of A-1 and A-2

under Sections 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) passed by the

learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal dated 22.03.2004 in Criminal Appeal

No. 94 of 2002, sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a

fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 384 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for

six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 506 IPC.  

2. The learned Chamber Judge vide order dated 23.11.2006

granted exemption from surrendering to Karipi Rasheed – A-1,

whereas  no  such  exemption  has  been  granted  to

Nazaar Ahmed – A-2.  Again, the learned Chamber Judge vide

order dated 04.12.2007 granted two weeks time finally to A-2

directing  him  to  file  proof  of  surrender,  failing  which  his

special leave petition was ordered to stand dismissed without

reference to the Court.  A-2 has again failed to comply with

the said order of the learned Chamber Judge, therefore, SLP

in respect of A-2 shall stand dismissed in terms of the order

dated 04.12.2007.

3. We grant leave to appeal to A-1 only.

4.1  Briefly  stated,  the  facts  of  the  case  are  that

Sharma Hariharan – complainant filed complaint against five

2

accused namely, Karipi Rasheed Ahmed – A-1,  Naazar Ahmed

- A-2, Sukhdev Singh Sodhi – A-3,  Sri Badulla – A-4 and K.H.

Ahmed Khaza – A-5 under Sections 323, 342, 347, 352, 384,

390,  442,  464  and  506  of  IPC.   The  learned  Ist Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, has separated the

trial of A-3 to A-5 as they were not found available for trial,

therefore, declared absconders.  Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 were

charged and convicted for the above-said offences.

4.2 A-1 is the owner and proprietor of Shama Beedi Factory

engaged  in  manufacturing  Beedi and  marketing  the  goods

through  A-3  -  Proprietor  of  Sodhi  Transport  Company  to

different  places.   The  complainant  at the  relevant  time was

Branch  Manager  of  Warangal  Branch  of  Sodhi  Transport

Company.   He  was  in-charge  of  booking  goods  of  the

customers by issuing Lorry Receipts (LRs) on receipt of money

towards  transportation  charges  or  asking  the  customers  to

make payment at the time of taking delivery of the goods at

the  respective  destinations.   It  was  the  case  of  the

complainant  that  in  September  1992,  A-1  approached  and

requested  him to  issue  advance  lorry  transport  receipts  for

Rs.25.00 lakhs as cost of goods for discounting the bills from

the  bank  without  presenting  the  goods  for  physical

verification,  but  the  complainant  did  not  agree  to  such

proposal.   A-1  allegedly  threatened  the  complainant  to  face

dire consequences for not obliging him.  A-1 approached the

Central  Crime  Station,  Warangal  with  a  false  complaint

against the complainant.          A-4, who was the CI of Police,

Central Police Station, Warangal, in collusion with A-1 to A-3,

took the complainant into custody and illegally confined him

in the Police Station from 17.09.1992 to 12.10.1992. During

the said period, the complainant was mentally and physically

harassed for no rhyme or reason.  It was alleged that A-4 at

the instance of A-1 and A-2 trespassed into the house of the

complainant and snatched gold rings, two bangles, gold chain

costing about                   Rs. 25,000/- from the custody of his

wife, on the pretext that the complainant has to reimburse the

loss  of  the  goods  misplaced  by  him  during  transportation

thereof.  A-1 and A-2 at the instance of A-4 called the parents

of the wife of the complainant and got forcibly, under threat

and  coercion  one  Special  Power  of  Attorney  (SPOA)  and

another  Power  of  Attorney  (POA)  executed  from  the

complainant in the name of his father-in-law for the purpose

of  executing  a  sale  deed  or  mortgage  deed  of  the  property

belonging to him situated at old Ooty and Palani in the State

of Tamil Nadu.  Thereafter, A-1 took over the possession of the

property situated at Door No. 69/E1 and 69/E2 at old Ooty by

means  of  agreement  dated  09.10.1992  and  house  plot  at

Palani  and  then  got  the  property  transferred  in  his  name

through Shri Unni Nair, father-in-law of the complainant on

the basis of the said POAs.  The value of the properties was

more  than Rs.  25.00 Lakhs.   The  complainant was kept  in

confinement  by  all  the  accused  till  the  completion  of

transactions.  It was further alleged that the complainant or

his wife during the period from 17.09.1992 to 12.10.1992 had

never  approached  A-5  the  Stamp Vendor  for  purchasing  of

stamps  being  used  for  executing  SPOA  and  POA  allegedly

executed in favour of father-in-law of the complainant.  The

complainant was finally released from the police custody after

the transactions were completed as per the desire of A1 and A-

2.  Thereafter,  the complainant filed a complaint before  the

Superintendent of Police, Warangal and also got issued a legal

notice to the accused persons.  On this premise, the complaint

came to be filed against all the five accused persons alleging

the commission of the above-said offences.  

4.3. During the trial of the case, the presence of A-3 to A-5

could  not  be  procured  by  the  trial  Magistrate  as  they  had

absconded.  The complainant has examined as many as four

witnesses in support of his case.  On the basis of the evidence

on  record,  the  learned  trial  Magistrate  found  A-1  and  A-2

guilty of the charges under Sections 344, 347, 384, 448 and

506 IPC and accordingly convicted them.  In addition to the

substantive  sentences  and fine imposed upon A-1 and A-2,

the  trial  Magistrate  also  directed  them  to  pay  a  sum  of

Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  

4.4. On  appeal,  the  learned  IV  Additional  Sessions  Judge,

Warangal by judgment dated 22.03.2004 in Criminal Appeal

No. 94 of 2002 modified the conviction and sentences of A-1

and A-2 as under:

S.No Accused Offences under which

convicted

Sentence imposed by trial court

Modified  by the  appellate court

1. A-1 & A-2 S. 344 IPC SI for three years and fine  of  Rs.  1000-00 each  ID  SI  for  six months.

SI  for  one year,while sustaining the fine.

2. A-1 & A-2 S. 384 IPC SI for three years and fine  of  Rs.  1000-00 each  ID  SI  for  six months.

SI  for  one year,  while sustaining the fine.

3. A-1 & A-2 S. 448 IPC SI  for  one  year  and fine  of  Rs.  500-00 each  ID  SI  for  three months.

The petitioners are acquitted under  this charge.

4. A-1 & A-2 S. 506 IPC SI  for  one  year  and fine  of  Rs.  500-00 each  ID  SI  for  three months.

SI  for  six months  while sustaining the fine.

4.5. Being  aggrieved  thereby,  A-1  and  A-2  filed  Criminal

Revision Case No. 512 of 2004 before the High Court.  The

learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment and order

dated 13.04.2006 acquitted A-1 and A-2 under Section 344

IPC  and  confirmed  their  conviction  and  sentence  under

Sections 348 and 506 IPC.   

5. Now A-1 is in appeal before this Court by special leave,

whereas the special leave petition of A-2 has been dismissed

for non-compliance of the order of surrender passed by the

learned Chamber Judge of this Court.

6. During  the  pendency  of  the  appeal,  the  complainant

entered into a compromise agreement with A-1 and A-2.  The

compromise agreement and affidavits in support thereof  are

placed  on  record  of  this  appeal.   In  the  said  compromise

agreement,  the  complainant  stated  he  may  be  permitted  to

compound the offences  with A-1 and A-2 in the  interest  of

justice.  The  terms  and  conditions  of  the  compromise

agreement read as under:

“1. I  respectably  pray  this  Hon’ble  Court  to consider this petition as a SPECIAL CASE.

2. I  humbly  submit  that,  I  am  having  two daughters  and  my  wife  all  the  3  are  the dependants.  Now it has been passed nearly 16 years  after  of  the  occurrence  took  place. Maximum period of my life was completed for attending of my case at Warangal, Ooty, Palani and Hyderabad (A.P).

3. I  further  respectfully  submit  that  at  the time of filing the case, my daughters were kids. Now they become major, I am in the position to look after their future like Education, Marriage etc., I had filed the criminal case as well as civil case against the Petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 to get back my properties so that it may be utilized for my daughters future life.

4. I  respectfully  submit  that  being  the  best enquiry and steps taken by all  the Courts my

properties  were  recovered.   But  only  I  have received  the  fruits  but  I  cannot  eat  them because appeal is pending in both Civil as well as Criminal in Lower Court Level.  If the failure party will proceed further appeal till before this Hon’ble  Court  it  will  take  another  6  years  to complete.   Due  to  the  appeal  case  pending,  I could not get any remedy in time and I am not in a position to continue the studies or marriage of  my  daughters  and  their  future  will  be  in question.  

5. Further  I  respectfully  submit  that,  the Petitioners  No.  1  and  No.  2  are  also  suffered much by way of losing business, mental agony and the Petitioner No. 1 is also aged about 83 years  and  suffers  with  Hypertension,  Sugar, B.P. Heart Attack etc.,  and further he will not live without taking insulin as per the advice of the doctor and that he is taking treatment for the last so many years in hospital and now also the  doctor  advised to take  bed rest  by taking continuous  treatment,  he  got  major  Heart Operation at Hyderabad and Bombay.

6. Considering  all  these  facts,  both  the Petitioners  No.  1  and  No.  2  and  myself  have agreed  to  enter  compromise  to  compound  the offences as per the terms of the affidavit  filed before this Hon’ble Court.

7. I  respectfully  submit  that,  I  have  no grievance with Petitioners No. 1 and No. 2, since all  of  the  disputes  were  amicably  settled  by Petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 with me.”

7. We  may  at  the  outset  note  that  the  offences  under

Sections 384 and 506 Part-II IPC are not compoundable under

Section  320  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973.

Therefore,  the prayer of compounding the offences made by

the complainant and A-1 in their joint application supported

by their affidavits cannot be legally accepted by us.  

8. We have heard Mr. Uday U. Lalit, Senior Advocate for A-1

and Mr. R. Sundaravardhan, Senior Advocate for respondent –

State,  and with their  assistance  we  have  gone  through the

judgment  of  the  learned  IV  Additional  Sessions  Judge  as

confirmed by the High Court and also the evidence led by the

prosecution.   Mr.  Uday  U.  Lalit,  learned  Senior  Advocate

contended that the courts below have recorded their findings

against  the  appellant  on  conjectures  and  surmises,  on  the

basis  of  misreading  of  the  evidence  led  on  record  by  the

complainant.  The  complainant  has  failed  to  prove  the

ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 384 and

506 Part-II  of IPC and, therefore, the impugned judgment of

the  High  Court  does  not  stand  judicial  scrutiny.   He  next

contended that the complainant has not established on record

that A-1 had any intention to put the complainant under any

threat, fear or injury or in any manner dishonestly induced

him to deliver the ownership and possession of the property or

valuable  security  to  A-1.   He  also  contended  that  the  trial

court,  appellate  court  and the High Court  all  have erred in

placing  reliance  on  the  highly  interested  and  discrepant

testimony  of  witnesses  who  have  given  one  sided  version,

whereas the version of A-1 has not been properly appreciated

and considered.  It was lastly contended that the complainant

has not explained the delay of about three years in lodging the

FIR against the accused persons.

9. As against that, Mr. R. Sundaravardhan, Senior Advocate

appearing  on  behalf  of  State,  has  canvassed  for  the

correctness of  the view taken by trial  judge,  as also by the

appellate court which was confirmed by the High Court.

10.  In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions of

the learned counsel for the parties, on our examination of the

judgment  given  by  the  trial  court,  as  also  by  the  appellate

court and confirmed by the High Court, we find that all the

courts  have  properly  and  rightly  appreciated  the  entire

evidence on record and there is no infirmity or perversity in

the findings recorded by the courts below to interfere with the

well-thought and well-reasoned judgments.  The evidence led

by the complainant has satisfactorily and convincingly proved

the charges levelled against A-1 and A-2 beyond reasonable

doubt.   The  three  courts  have  concurrently  held  both  the

accused  guilty  of  the  crime  and  we  do  not  find  any  good

reason  to  differ  with  the  view  taken  by  the  courts  below.

Thus, the conviction of A-1 under Sections 384 and 506 Part-

II IPC cannot be found faulty on any ground.  Now, the only

question that survives for our consideration is in regard to the

quantum of sentence.

11. A-1  is  now about  83  years  old.   He  is  suffering  from

hypertension,  sugar,  high  blood  pressure,  heart  attack  etc.

He is said to be regularly taking insulin and the doctor has

advised him to take complete bed rest and continue to take

proper  medical  treatment  without  fail.   The  compromise

agreement reveals that A-1 has undergone heart operations at

Hyderabad and Bombay.  A-1 has returned the property, the

subject-matter of the dispute to the complainant and has also

paid the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in terms of

the order of the High Court.  On consideration of the contents

of the above-said compromise agreement and in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that

instead of sentencing A-1 to undergo the substantive sentence

of imprisonment as imposed upon him by the High Court, the

interest of justice would be sub-served if the amount of fine of

Rs.  1,000/-  imposed  upon  A-1  under  Section  384  IPC  is

enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- and the amount of fine of Rs. 500/-

is enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- for offence under Section 506 IPC.

Thus, the judgment and order of the High Court would stand

modified to that extent.

12. For  the  aforesaid  reasons,  the  appeal  of  A-1  is  partly

allowed and he is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of

fine of Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand and five hundred

only) before the trial court within four weeks from today.  In

default  of  payment  of  fine  amount  within  the  stipulated

period,  A-1  shall  suffer  the  substantive  sentences  of

imprisonment  imposed  upon  him  by  the  High  Court  for

committing offences under Sections 384 and 506 IPC.

........................................J.                                                    (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

........................................J.                                                    (B. Sudershan Reddy) New Delhi, February  26,  2009.