REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1879 OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5562 of 2011)
Nasib Hussain Siddi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat ...Respondent
O R D E R
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby conviction of the
appellants for offences punishable under Sections 325,
506(2), 333, 342 and 114 IPC has been affirmed and the –
1
sentence reduced to imprisonment for a period of 1=
years.
3. When the special leave petition came up for
admission, this Court by its order dated 1st August, 2011
issued notice to the respondents only on the question of
sentence. We are not, therefore, examining the validity of
the order of conviction which both the Courts below have
passed on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record.
The only question on which we have heard learned counsel
for the parties is whether the sentence awarded to the
appellants needs to be reduced and, if so, to what extent.
4. The genesis of the case of the appellants lies in an
incident that took place on 7th September, 2003 at village
Chitrod in the District of Kutch, State of Gujarat. The
complainant in the case was, during the relevant period, a
Constable posted at Chitrod outpost of Police Station
Bhimasar. The prosecution case is that at about 10.30 a.m.
on 7th September, 2003 when the complainant was on
patrol duty, he found one Babubhai quarrelling in public
place with one Hussain Ibrahim Siddi, accused no.1. The –
2
constable appears to have accosted the quarrelling duo and
asked them as to why they were disturbing peace and
ordered them to accompany him to the police station. This
appears to have infuriated Hussain Ibrahim Siddi who
caught hold of the Constable from his collar and pushed
him. In the meantime the son, wife and mother of Hussain
Ibrahim Siddi also appear to have joined Hussain Ibrahim
Siddi, exchanged hot words with constable and prevented
him from taking Hussain Ibrahim Siddi to the Police Station.
It was on those allegations that Hussain Ibrahim and the
appellants were tried together for the offences mentioned
earlier.
5. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 13
witnesses to support its case. The depositions of these
witnesses were found reliable by the Trial Court resulting in
the conviction of Hussain Ibrahim for the offence
punishable under Section 325 and sentence of five years RI
besides a fine of Rs.500/-. In default he was directed to
undergo a further sentence of six months. He was also
3
convicted under Section 506(2) of the IPC and sentenced to
–
undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine
of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment
for a period of six months. Hussain Ibrahim was in addition
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years and
a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 333 and in default to
undergo further imprisonment of six months. Imprisonment
for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.100/- was awarded
to him under Section 342 of the IPC and in default to
undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month.
6. In so far as the appellants Hussain Siddi, Malubai wife
of Ibrahim Siddi and Hawabai wife of Hussain Ibrahim are
concerned, the Trial Court found them also to be guilty of
offences punishable under Sections 333 of the IPC and
sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three years and a fine of Rs.200/-. Malubai
accused no.3 and appellant before us was also in addition
convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
period of three years under Section 506(2) IPC apart from
4
a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine she was
sentenced to undergo six months further imprisonment.
–
7. Aggrieved by the orders of conviction and sentence
the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad who has while upholding the
conviction of the appellants reduced the sentence awarded
to all of them to 1= years instead of three years.
7. It is common ground that the appellants, two of whom
happen to be females had not physically assaulted the
constable. Even appellant no.1 is not alleged to have used
any force against the constable in the incident in question.
The incident itself is nearly ten years old by now. Keeping in
view all these circumstances and the fact that Hussain
Ibrahim Siddi accused no.1 who was mainly responsible for
the grievous injury caused to the constable has already
served the sentence awarded to him, we are of the opinion
that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the
sentence awarded to the appellants is modified and reduced
to the sentence already undergone by them.
5
–
8. We order accordingly. The appellants shall be set at
liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. The
appeal is allowed to the above extent.
……………………………..J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
……………………………..J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
New Delhi
September 28, 2011
6