# NARESH & ORS v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 3 S.C.R. 940
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-04-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2018
- **Bench:** R. K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/naresh-ors-v-the-state-of-uttarakhand-ors-32726
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - ss.307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 -
Four accused - Prosecution case was that the accused persons
attacked the victim with axe and caused injuries to him on his body
- The injuries were abrasion, contusion and one lacerated wound
- Sessions court acquitted all the accused - However, High Court
set aside acquittal and ordered conviction - Appeal against
conviction - Held: In view of finding of facts, interference with the
order of High Court is not called for in case of accused no.1, 3
and 4 - However, sentence awarded by High Court is reduced to
what they have already undergone for the reason that the appellants
were first offender, the injuries inflicted on the victim were not serious
in nature and victim survived leaving no disability due to causing
of the injuries - The fine of Rs.7000 awarded by High Court is
enhanced to Rs.75000 - In case of appellant no.2, role attributed
to him was not established beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
he is acquitted of charges leveled against him.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: So far as the involvement of appellant Nos.1, 3 and
4, in commission of offence in question, is concerned, no case for
interference is made out on findings of fact. As regards the
sentence of appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4, their respective jail
sentences awarded by the High Court are modified and reduced
to what they have already undergone and the fine amount awarded
by the High Court enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.75,000/- to
each appellant for the following reasons. First, the incident is of
1998. In other words, it is now almost 20 years have passed that
this litigation is pending in various Courts. Second, there were
seven injuries noticed by the doctor on the body of injured but
the injuries noticed were not very serious in nature. Third, the
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 940
940
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
victim survived leaving no disability much less permanent on his
body due to causing of the injuries and lived for twenty years
after the date of alleged incident and died recently. Fourth,
appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 have undergone almost one year of jail
sentence including remission out of the total jail sentence awarded
by the High Court. Fifth, the appellants were first offender and
were not found involved in any criminal activity in the last 20
years, though remained on bail throughout. [Paras 14-21][944-FH; 945-A-D]

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
NARESH & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2018)
APRIL 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 -
Four accused - Prosecution case was that the accused persons
attacked the victim with axe and caused injuries to him on his body
- The injuries were abrasion, contusion and one lacerated wound
- Sessions court acquitted all the accused - However, High Court
set aside acquittal and ordered conviction - Appeal against
conviction - Held: In view of finding of facts, interference with the
order of High Court is not called for in case of accused no.1, 3
and 4 - However, sentence awarded by High Court is reduced to
what they have already undergone for the reason that the appellants
were first offender, the injuries inflicted on the victim were not serious
in nature and victim survived leaving no disability due to causing
of the injuries - The fine of Rs.7000 awarded by High Court is
enhanced to Rs.75000 - In case of appellant no.2, role attributed
to him was not established beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
he is acquitted of charges leveled against him.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: So far as the involvement of appellant Nos.1, 3 and
4, in commission of offence in question, is concerned, no case for
interference is made out on findings of fact. As regards the
sentence of appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4, their respective jail
sentences awarded by the High Court are modified and reduced
to what they have already undergone and the fine amount awarded
by the High Court enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.75,000/- to
each appellant for the following reasons. First, the incident is of
1998. In other words, it is now almost 20 years have passed that
this litigation is pending in various Courts. Second, there were
seven injuries noticed by the doctor on the body of injured but
the injuries noticed were not very serious in nature. Third, the
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 940
940
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
victim survived leaving no disability much less permanent on his
body due to causing of the injuries and lived for twenty years
after the date of alleged incident and died recently. Fourth,
appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 have undergone almost one year of jail
sentence including remission out of the total jail sentence awarded
by the High Court. Fifth, the appellants were first offender and
were not found involved in any criminal activity in the last 20
years, though remained on bail throughout. [Paras 14-21][944-FH; 945-A-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 394-395 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2017/17.07.2017 of
the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of
2011 and Government Appeal No. 42 of 2011.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 396 of 2018.
Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Mrs. Mamta
Jain, Uday Ram Bokadia, Atul Agarwal, Ms. Divya Garg, Rakesh Kumar
Khare, Sonal Jain, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Pankaj Kumar
Singh, Mukesh Verma, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Criminal Appeal Nos.394-395 of 2018
1. These appeals are filed by the accused persons against the
common final judgment and order dated 10.07.2017/17.07.2017 passed
by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.91
of 2011 (filed by the complainant) and Government Appeal No.42 of
2011 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals of the State and the
Complainant and set aside the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the
Additional Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial Nos.286 of 1999 and found
the accused persons, Naresh, Suresh, Ashish@Sheshraj and Rajendra
guilty for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307/34,
NARESH v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
323/34, 324/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as "IPC") and accordingly sentenced each of them as under:
Accused
Trial Court
High Court
Naresh
(A-1)
Acquitted under
Sections 307/34,
323/34, 324/34 and
504IPC
Convicted under Sections 307/34,
323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC
5 years R.I. and Rs.5000/- under
Section 307 IPC
6 months R.I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 323/34 IPC
2 years R.I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 324/34 IPC
1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/- under
Section 504 IPC
Suresh
(A-2)
Acquitted u/s 307/34,
323/34, 324/34 and 504
IPC
Convicted under Section 307/34,
323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC
6 months R.I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 323/34 IPC
2 years R.I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 324/34 IPC
1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/- under
Section 504 IPC
(However, on account of the
advance stage of lung cancer, 2
years R.I. u/s 307 IPC)
Ashish@
Shesh
Raj (A3)
Acquitted u/s 307/34,
323/34, 324/34 and 504
IPC
Convicted under Sections 307/34,
323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC
5 years R.I. and Rs.5000/- under
Section 307 IPC
6 months R.I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 323/34 IPC
2 years R.I. and Rs.500/- under
Section 324/34 IPC
1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/- under
Section 504 IPC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeals, few
relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow.
3. The appellants herein are the accused. They are Naresh (A1), Suresh (A-2), Ashish (A-3) and Rajendra (A-4).
4. These four accused faced prosecution for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 of
the IPC.
5. In short, the prosecution case against these four appellants
was that on 26.05.1998, they attacked one person by name "Tej Singh"
with axe and caused injuries to him on his body. The injuries were
abrasion, contusion, and one lacerated wound (see page 86 of appeal
paper book-Annexure- P/2 doctor's opinion).
6. It is this incident which led to filing of FIR (No.83/1998) on
27.05.1998 by PW-4 Jaswir Singh against four accused in PS HaridwarLaksar. The four appellants were accordingly apprehended and put to
trial. The Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, by order dated 16.03.2011,
acquitted all the four appellants (accused).
7. The State and the Complainant felt aggrieved and filed leave to
file appeals before the High Court seeking permission to question the
legality and correctness of the order of the appellants' acquittal. Leave
was granted. Naresh Kumar(A-1) also filed Criminal Appeal No.126 of
2011 before the High Court.
307/34,
C
under
- under
nder
under
07/34,
C
- under
nder
under
he
cer, 2
307/34,
C
under
- under
nder
under
Rajendra
(A-4)
Acquitted u/s
307/34, 323/34,
324/34 and 504 IPC
Convicted under Sections
307/34, 323/34, 324/34
and 504 IPC
5 years R.I. and Rs.5000/-
under Section 307 IPC
6 months R.I. and Rs.500/-
under Section 323/34 IPC
2 years R.I. and Rs.500/-
under Section 324/34 IPC
1 year R.I. and Rs.1000/-
under Section 504 IPC
NARESH v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
8. By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeals
filed by the Complainant and the State and set aside the order passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar and sentenced all the accused
persons for the offences punishable under various sections mentioned
supra.
9. However, taking into consideration the disease suffered by
Suresh(A-2), i.e., advanced stage of lung cancer, he was sentenced to
undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC. The
Court directed the State to admit him at Civil hospital, Roorkee for medical
treatment.
10. The appellants (accused) felt aggrieved by the judgment of
the High Court and filed these appeals by way of special leave in this
Court.
11. The short question, which arises for consideration in these
appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order
of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and convicting the
appellants.
12. Heard Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain, learned senior counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondents.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part
insofar as Suresh-Accused No.2 (appellant No. 2 herein) is concerned
and acquit him of the charges by restoring the order of the Additional
Sessions Judge.
14. So far as the remaining three accused- appellants are
concerned, namely, the appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4, we modify their
respective jail sentences awarded by the High Court mentioned above
and reduced to what they have already undergone and enhance the fine
amount awarded by the High Court, i.e., from Rs.7000/- to Rs.75,000/
- to each appellant.
15. This we are inclined to do for the following reasons.
16. First, the incident is of 1998 and we are in 2018. In other
words, it is now almost 20 years have passed that this litigation is pending
in various Courts.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
17. Second, there were seven injuries noticed by the doctor on
the body of injured-Tej Singh but the injuries noticed were not very serious
in nature as would be clear from the Doctor's report mentioned above.
18. Third, Tej Singh survived leaving no disability much less
permanent on his body due to causing of the injuries and lived for twenty
years after the date of alleged incident and died recently in last week as
was stated by learned counsel for the appellants.
19. Fourth, all the appellants(accused) have undergone almost
one year of jail sentence including remission out of the total jail sentence
awarded by the High Court except appellant No.2 - Suresh(A-2), who
underwent around three months.
20. Fifth, all the appellants were first offender and were not
found involved in any criminal activity in the last 20 years, though remained
on bail throughout and lastly, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are reported to be in
Government Service.
21. However, so far as the involvement of appellant Nos.1, 3 and
4, in commission of offence in question, is concerned, we have perused
the findings of the High Court qua each and find that no case for
interference on such findings of fact though of reversal is called for by
this Court. In our view, it is just and proper and, therefore, we uphold the
finding of conviction of appellant Nos.1 , 3, and 4.
22. For all these aforementioned reasons, which are relevant in
the facts of this case, we are inclined to interfere only in the quantum of
jail sentence awarded by the High Court and reduce their jail sentence
to the sentence already undergone and at the same time consider it just
and proper to enhance the fine amount imposed by the High Court on
appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4.
23. So far as the case of appellant No.2 - Suresh(A-2) is
concerned, we have perused the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge,
which resulted in his acquittal, and also perused the finding of the High
Court which resulted in his conviction.
24. Having perused both the findings for deciding the role and
involvement of appellant No.2 - Suresh in the incident in question, we
are inclined to restore the finding of the Sessions Judge rather than that
of the High Court. In other words, we find that the role and involvement
of appellant No.2 - Suresh is not established beyond reasonable doubt
NARESH v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
while inflicting the injuries to Tej Singh and hence, in our view, appellant
No.2-Suresh deserves to be acquitted of the charges leveled against
him. He is on bail because he is reported to be suffering from lung
cancer.
25. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed
and are allowed in part and the impugned judgment is modified as under:
26. The jail sentence awarded to appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 stands
modified and is accordingly reduced to already undergone. In other
words, the appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are not now required to undergo any
more jail sentence in connection with the offences in question.
27. However, as held above, appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 each of
them shall pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- by way of fine amount to the legal
representatives of late Tej Singh (victim) (total Rs.2,25,000/-) or deposit
the said sum (Rs.2,25,000/-) in the Court for being paid to the legal
representatives of late Tej Singh. The amount of Rs.2,25,000/- be
deposited by appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 within three months from the date
of the order.
28. Failure to deposit the amount by anyone of the appellants
(Nos.1, 3 & 4) will revive the impugned judgment and in such event, the
defaulting appellant(s) will be taken into custody to undergo remaining
jail sentence awarded by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
29. So far as appeal the appeal in respect of appellant No.2-Suresh
is concerned, it is allowed and the conviction of appellant No.2 stands
set aside. He is accordingly set free. His bail bonds are cancelled.
Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2018
In view of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395
of 2018, the appeal is disposed of.
Devika Gujral
 Appeals disposed of.