Kaliben Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP(Cr) No. 348/2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 13.03.2007 of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1290/2005.]
[Arising out of SLP(Cr) No. 348/2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 13.03.2007 of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1290/2005.]
Petitioner: Kaliben Rabari
Respondent: State of Gujarat & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP(Cr) No. 348/2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 13.03.2007 of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1290/2005.]
[Arising out of SLP(Cr) No. 348/2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 13.03.2007 of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1290/2005.]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 27, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. Shanker Divate, Advocate for he Petitioner.
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Mr. S. Gupta, Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Mr. P. Kataki, Advocates for the Respondent.
Mr. Shanker Divate, Advocate for he Petitioner.
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Mr. S. Gupta, Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Mr. P. Kataki, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Penal Code, 1860
Sections 304 Part I, 304 Part II – Trial Court sentencing the accused under Section 304 Part I and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 10 year with a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs – High Court converting the sentence from 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II and accordingly reducing the sentence to 2 years – Reduction of fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs without assigning any reason – Justification. Held, where the High Court has altered conviction from Section 304 Part I to 304 Part II, there was no basis for reducing the compensation as awarded. No reason has been indicated to justify the reduction. Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5 lakhs.
Penal Code, 1860
Sections 304 Part I, 304 Part II – Trial Court sentencing the accused under Section 304 Part I and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 10 year with a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs – High Court converting the sentence from 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II and accordingly reducing the sentence to 2 years – Reduction of fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs without assigning any reason – Justification. Held, where the High Court has altered conviction from Section 304 Part I to 304 Part II, there was no basis for reducing the compensation as awarded. No reason has been indicated to justify the reduction. Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5 lakhs.
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The only question of importance which is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court while reducing the sentence from 10 years to two and half years in respect of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) also reduced compensation from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no basis for such reduction after the custodial period was substantially reduced. The High Court in fact refused to extend the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 (in short the Probation Act) to the accused persons. By applying the parameters of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,(in short the `Code’), the trial Court had fixed the quantum of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. Learned counsel for the accused respondent supported the judgment of the High Court.
3. We find that in a case of this nature where the High Court has altered conviction from Section 304 Part I to 304 Part II IPC and has considerably reduced the period of custodial sentence, there was no basis for reducing the compensation as awarded, i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. No reason has been indicated to justify the reduction. Accordingly, we enhance the quantum of compensation to Rs. 5 lakhs. The balance of amount, if any, required to be deposited shall be so done within a period of four weeks from today.
4. The appeal is disposed of.
**********
1. Leave granted.
2. The only question of importance which is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court while reducing the sentence from 10 years to two and half years in respect of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) also reduced compensation from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no basis for such reduction after the custodial period was substantially reduced. The High Court in fact refused to extend the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 (in short the Probation Act) to the accused persons. By applying the parameters of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,(in short the `Code’), the trial Court had fixed the quantum of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. Learned counsel for the accused respondent supported the judgment of the High Court.
3. We find that in a case of this nature where the High Court has altered conviction from Section 304 Part I to 304 Part II IPC and has considerably reduced the period of custodial sentence, there was no basis for reducing the compensation as awarded, i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. No reason has been indicated to justify the reduction. Accordingly, we enhance the quantum of compensation to Rs. 5 lakhs. The balance of amount, if any, required to be deposited shall be so done within a period of four weeks from today.
4. The appeal is disposed of.
**********
