REPORTABLE

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL Nos. 72-73 OF 2003         

   GEORGE PON PAUL ...   Appellant(s)                         Versus    KANAGALET & ORS. ...  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of  

the Madras High Court allowing the revision petition filed by the present respondent  

nos. 1 and 2 while dismissing the revision petition filed by the present appellant.  The  

High Court was of the view that for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the  

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short 'IPC') only the fine was imposed and therefore  

sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years in addition  

to the fine imposed.  Prosecution version as unfolded during trial was that  

on 7.1.1993 at about 2.45 P.M. three accused persons trespassed into the house of  

respondent No. 1 (PW1) and attacked her husband respondent No. 2 (PW2).  While  

the said

attack was restrained by PW1., they attacked her also with

-2-

Vettu Kathi and other weapons and caused injuries to both of them.  All the three  

accused were tried for commission of offence punishable under Sections 452, 326,  

324 and 325IPC.  The trial court directed acquittal of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 while  

convicting the present appellant for the offences punishable under Section 326 and  

452  IPC.   The  present  appellant  challenging  the  said  conviction  filed  an  appeal  

before the Appellate Court which confirmed the conviction, and sentence imposed  

i.e. confinement till rising of court and fine with default stipulation.  Aggrieved by  

the same, the present appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 1048 of 2001 before the  

Madras High Court.  Immediately after the conviction was recorded both the victims  

Pws 1 and 2 filed a criminal revision petition No. 935/1999 before the High Court  

challenging  the acquittal  in  respect  of  the charges as  against  A2 and A3 and to  

enhance the sentence imposed upon A1 for both the offence as the sentence imposed  

was not adequate.

Both the revision petitions were taken up and disposed of by a common  

judgment.  The High Court found that the acquittal of A2 and A3 does not suffer  

from  any  infirmity.   It  noted  that  in  view  of  the  specific  provisions  relating  to  

imposition of custodial sentence, the trial court could not have imposed only fine.  

The High Court found  no  merit in  the revision  petition  filed  by the

-3-

appellant questioning his conviction but held that in view of provisions of Section  

326,  custodial  sentence  has  to  be  there.  Accordingly,  while  maintaining  the  

conviction the sentence was enhanced.  Sections 326 and 452 reads as follows:

326. Voluntarily  causing  grievous  hurt  by  dangerous  weapons  or

means -  

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous  hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument  which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any  heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of  any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is  deleterious to the  human body to inhale,  to swallow, or to receive into the blood,  or by means of  any  animal, shall  be punished with 152 [imprisonment for life],  or with imprisonment of  either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to  fine.

452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -

Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any  

person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for  

putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be  

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to  

seven years, and shall be liable to fine.

The only question that remains is whether the custodial sentence as was  

imposed by the trial  court was adequate or not i.e.  confinement till  rising of  the  

court.

-4-

It appears from record that the fine amount has been deposited and the  

amount which was directed to be paid to PW2 has already been paid.

Considering this fact and the long passage of time, it would appropriate to  

restrict the period of sentence to the period already undergone.  The appeals stand  

disposed of  

              ...................J.

                                (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)   

             ....................J.                          ((ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 29, 2009.