The offence punishable under Section 333 of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter a public servant from discharging his duty attracts punishment by imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years with a fine. The offence punishable under Section 353 of using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty attracts punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with a fine, or with both. Lastly, the offence punishable under Section 451 of committing house trespass in order to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment, attracts imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and a fine. (Para 7)
Considering the seriousness of the offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC and since the punishment prescribed is both of imprisonment of either description and a fine, obviously, the appellant cannot be let off only on a fine. However, considering the circumstances set out in paragraph 5 above, we are of the view that the appellant deserves to be shown leniency when it comes to the substantive sentence. The distinct factors set out in paragraph no.5, taken individually, do not constitute a ground by itself to show leniency. For example, only because an accused is on bail for a long time, it is no ground by itself to show leniency. It is only one of the several factors to be considered. But we have considered these factors cumulatively. Hence, we propose to bring down the sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 333 to simple imprisonment for one month. We propose to impose a fine of Rs.30,000/for the said offence. (Para 8)
The offence punishable under Section 353 provides for punishment by imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with a fine, or with both. We, therefore, propose to bring down her sentence to a fine of Rs.20,000/. As regards the offence under Section 451 of the IPC, if the offence is not committed with the intention of committing theft, it is punishable by imprisonment of either description for a period of two years and to pay a fine. Looking at the factors set out in paragraph 5, we propose to sentence the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/. (Para 9)
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction of the appellant by both the Courts for offences punishable under Sections 333, 353 and 451 of the IPC is confirmed. For the offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of Rs.30,000/within one month from today. For the offence punishable under Section 451 of the IPC, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/within a period of one month from today. We bring down the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC by directing the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/within a period of one month from today. The fine amounts as aforesaid shall be deposited in the Trial Court. The fine amounts will be inclusive of the fine of Rs.2,000/directed to be paid by the trial Court. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. (Para 10)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 STPL(Web) 132 SC
RAZIA KHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 2259 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5823 of 2023)-Decided on 3-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-132-SC.pdf
