http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NABI BUX & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1971

BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. PALEKAR, D.G.

CITATION:  1972 AIR  495            1972 SCR  (2) 353  1972 SCC  (1)   7  CITATOR INFO :  D          1972 SC1823  (11)

ACT: Sentence--Enhanced  by High Court under s. 423(1A)  Code  of Criminal  Procedure,  1898--This Court in  appeal  will  not interfere unless sentence is shown to be unjust or harsh.

HEADNOTE: For  an offence under s. 325 read with s. 34 of  the  Indian Penal  Code  the appellants were sentenced by  the  Sessions Judge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months  each, apart from fine.  The High Court in exercise of powers under s.  423(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure  enhanced  the sentence  to  rigorous  imprisonment for two  years  On  the question whether this Court should, in the circumstances  of the  case,  interfere  with  the order  of  the  High  Court enhancing the sentence, HELD  :  It could not be said that- the High Court  was  not justified  in  holding that in view of the severity  of  the injuries caused to one of the victims the sentence passed by the trial court was lenient.  It would be wrong to interfere with  the sentence passed by the High Court when it was  not shown to be unjust or harsh. [317 E] Surta & Ors. v. State of Haryana, C.A. No. 225/70 dt.  12-2- 1971, referred to-.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 63  of 1971. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated December  10, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,  Indore Bench in Cr.  Appeal No. 94 of 1970.    Nur-ud-din Ahmed and U. P. Singh, for the, appellants.    R. P. Kapur for I. N. Shroff for the respondent.    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray,  J. This is an appeal by special leave limited only  to the  question  whether  the  High  Court  was  justified  in enhancing the sentences. The appellants Nabi Bux, Noor Mohammad and Ismail Khan  were tried  by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh on  charges

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

under  section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian  Penal Code  for  attempting  to  commit  the  murder  of  Bapu  in furtherance of their common intention and also under section 325  read  with  section 34 of the  Indian  Penal  Code  for causing  grievous  hurt to Chunia in  furtherance  of  their common  intention.   The appellants were  acquitted  on  the charge under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.   They were  convicted on two charges under section 325/34  of  the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to  317 Bapu  and Chunia.  They were sentenced to undergo  imprison- ment  for six months each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each  with six months, rigorous imprisonment in default. The  High Court on appeal maintained the conviction  and  in exercise  of  powers under section 423 (1A) of the  Code  of Criminal   Procedure  enhanced  the  sentence  to   rigorous imprisonment  for two years.  The High Court. said that  the learned trial Judge had taken a lenient view in awarding the sentences  to  the  appellants.  Bapu who  was  one  of  the victims  sustained  three  fractures on  his  left  temporal parietal  and occipital bones and totally lost his power  of speech.  The High Court said that for such serious  offences committed by the appellants they were awarded a sentence  of six  months rigorous imprisonment only by the learned  trial Judge. Counsel for the appellants submitted that by the end of  the month  of  October, 1971 the appellants  would  have  served sentence  for  10  months and this Court in  the  facts  and circumstances  of the case would reduce the sentence to  the period already undergone. The High Court in considering the question of sentence exer- cised  powers with reference to the facts and  circumstances of. the case.  The exercise of this power cannot be said  to suffer from any infirmity or lack of appreciation of  facts. Nor can it be said that the High Court was not justified  in observing  that the sentence passed by the trial  court  was lenient in the circumstances of the case.  It would be wrong to  interfere  with the sentence passed by the  High  Court. Any interference has to be supported by rules and principles in the administration of justice.  The ruling of this  Court on the question of sentence in the recent decision in  Surta & Ors. v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 225 of  1970 decided on 12 February, 1971) is as follows               "This Court interferes with sentence only when               it  is established that the sentence is  harsh               or  unjust in the facts and  circumstances  of               the case.  Sometimes consideration of age  has               also  occasioned  interference.   There   ’are               instances  of  interference  in  sentences  in               cases of violation of statutory offences.   In               the  present case, the Sessions Court and  the               High  Court  both considered the  question  of               sentence.   There  is  nothing  on  record  to               suggest that the sentence passed is unjust  or               harsh".               The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. G.C.                       Appeal dismissed. 318