Jadhav Vs. Mallappa Sangramappa Mallipatil & ANR.  INSC 2070 (2
SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)
No(s).261/2008 (From the judgement and order dated 27/04/2007 in CRLRA No.
183/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) VISHWAMBHAR NARAYAN JADHAV Petitioner(s)
VERSUS MALLAPPA SANGRAMAPPA MALLIPATIL & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln(s)
for exemption from filing O.T.,stay and office report )) Date: 02/12/2008 This
Petition was called on for hearing today.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
MARKANDEY KATJU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM For Petitioner(s) Mr.
Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu, Adv.for Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe,Adv. For
Respondent(s) Mr. Rajesh Mahale,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel
the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.
The Appeal is allowed
in terms of the signed order.
(Parveen Kr. Chawla)
(Indu Satija) Court Master Court Master [Signed Reportable Order is placed on
the File] REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1951 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal)
No.261 of 2008) Vishwambhar Narayan Jadhav ..Appellant versus Mallappa
Sangramappa Mallipatil & Anr. ..Respondents ORDER Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.
This Appeal has been
filed against the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27th April,
2007 in Criminal Revision Application No.183 of 2007.
The facts of the
prosecution case are mentioned in the FIR dated 25th January, 2002, copy of
which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal. In the FIR, it has been
mentioned that while the appellant was on a bus, respondent No.1 entered the
bus and came to the seat of the appellant and said that you always harassed my
uncle and he started abusing the appellant. Respondent No.1 then took a bottle
of acid from his pocket and poured the acid on the head of the appellant with
the result that the face, neck, eyes, chest etc. of the appellant were
seriously burnt. Appellant was then taken to the hospital where he was given
medical treatment. We have seen the photographs showing serious burn injuries
on the head, face and chest of the appellant.
The trial Court, by
its judgment dated 06th October, 2004, found respondent No.1 guilty under
Section 326, IPC and sentenced him to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment
with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo further three months' simple
Against the aforesaid
judgment, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge,
who by his judgment dated 13th April, 2007 confirmed the conviction and
sentence awarded by the trial Court.
appears that respondent No.1 filed a Criminal Revision Application No.183/2007
before the Bombay High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court
reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but the fine was increased
to Rs. 20,000/-.
We are surprised that
the High Court has, in such a heinous crime, chosen to reduce the punishment to
the sentence already undergone which we are informed was only 35 days. In our
opinion, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the
judgment of the trial Court and the first appellate court. Respondent No.1
appears to be a person who has criminal inclinations and no leniency is called
for for such persons, otherwise people will not be able to go around in life in
Accordingly, we set
aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial
court and first appellate court. Respondent No.1 be taken into custody
forthwith to serve out his remaining part of sentence.
Pages: 1 2 3