A two-judge bench of the apex court on 11.10.2018 in SURENDER SINGH V. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.( Criminal Appeal No(s). 914 of 2017) modified the judgement of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh affirming the conviction of the appellant (accused) under Sections 436, 429, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and also the sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed upon the appellant. The bench was headed by:-

• JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
• JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

FACTS: During the intervening night of 24th/25th November, 2000, the appellant Surender Singh and his real brother, Jai Bhagwan, alleged to have set fire to the house of the complainant-Sandeep (PW-4) who was at that time studying in Class-XII. Sandeep’s father, Inder Singh, was away on his work and Sandeep was alone in the house at the relevant point of time and before Sandeep could let loose the cattle, two buffaloes, one she calf and one off-spring of the buffalo sustained burn injuries and subsequently they died. The complainant-Sandeep also got burn injuries in the said incident.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant and his real brother under Sections 436, 429, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them imprisonment for seven years.

Feeling aggrieved appellants approached the high court for the reversal of the order of trial court. But High Court upheld the conviction and the punishment.

The co-accused-Jai Bhagwan filed S.L.P. to the Supreme Court which was dismissed; then later review petition was also filed by Jai Bhagwan which was also dismissed.

As a result, the appellant-1 approached the Supreme Court against the judgement of the High Court.

ISSUES:

• Whether appellants were liable to get award of reduced sentence?

CONTENTIONS:

By appellants:

• That subsequent to the said occurrence a village panchayat was convened and that as per the decision of the village panchayatas an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs) was paid to the affected party, namely, the complainant party-Inder Singh (father of Sandeep).
• Prayed for reduction of sentence by urging to take note of that subsequent development and that the appellant had already undergone imprisonment of about three years and three 3 months.
• Even though the notice was ordered to the complainant parties to inform the Court about the receipt of the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs) in lieu of the damages, the complainant parties had not entered appearance.

By respondents:

• Appellants should not be granted the reduction of sentence in either quantum of punishment or otherwise.

OBSERVATIONS: The Supreme Court observed that:-

• Since the occurrence was of the year 2000 and taking note of the subsequent development that a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs) had been paid to the complainant-party (Inder Singh), so the reduction of the sentence could be awarded.

HELD: The court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the judgement of the High Court in the following manner:-

• The sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed upon the appellant was reduced to five years.
• The appellant was directed to surrender to custody within a period of six weeks from the date of judgement to serve the remaining sentence failing which he shall be taken to custody.
• A copy of this order was directed to send to the concerned Trial Court for necessary action.

For full judgement refer: https://www.supremecourt.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/4986/4986_2017_Judgement_11-Oct-2018.pdf