BIJENDER @PAPU AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 513, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 513 
BIJENDER (fiJ PAPU AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 463of2016) 
JUNE03,2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3251149, 148A, 3081149 and 3231 
149 - Claim of parity - Conviction of five persons u/ss.3251149, 
148A, 3081149 and 3231149 and sentenced to RI for three years 
with fine for major offence and lesser sentences for remaining 
offences - High Court enhanced the sentence to RI for five years 
for the major offences - Three of them released on probution of 
good conduct - Claim of parity by appellants - On appeal, held: 
Trial was 19 years old and concession was shown to other three co-
accused due to their extreme old age - High Court enhanced the 
sentence on account of sole head injury suffered by the victim but 
the victim was unable to depose due to his condition and as such no 
jpecjfic role cmt!d be assigned to any of the convicts - Considering 
the other facts and circumstances, the period of sentence reduced 
from five years to, three years RI for the offences uls. 3251149 JPC 
- However, the amount of fine and conviction and sentence for 
other offences maintained - Sentence/Sentencing. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The concession shown to other three convicts was 
mainly on the ground of their extreme old age and the special 
treatment was justified. The parity claimed by the appellants is 
misconceived .The High Court enhanced the sentence from three 
years to five years RI
for the main offence because of the suffering 
of the injured 'B' on account of the sole bead injury caused by 
Iatbi. 'B' was brought to court but was unable to depose because 
of mental impairment suffered by him. Had the prosecution 
witnesses been able to pinpoint the accused who caused the bead 
injury on 'B', be would have been treated to be responsible of a 
graver offence meriting higher punishment but unff}rtunately no 
sncb specific role were assigned to any of the five convicts. 
Considering the other facts and circumstances, particularly the 
513 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
genesis of the occurrence, the period of sentence is reduced from 
five years to three years RI for the offences u/s. 325/149 IPC in 
· respect of both the appellants. However, the amount of fine and 
conviction and sentence for other. offences are left intact. [Para 
4] [515-C-FJ 
. B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H, 
No. 463 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2015 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 1190-SB 
of2000. 
Sanjay Suri, Pankaj Kumar, Rishabh Relan, Ms. Varsha Rana, 
Ms. Rinku Mishra, Satpal Singh, Advs. for the Appellants. 
Vishwa Pal Singh, Dr. San jay Gupta, Ad vs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. This criminal appeal arises from 
a special leave petition in which notice was issued solely on the question 
of sentence. From that point of view, it is necessary to keep in mind only 
the relevant broad feature~ of the prosecution case that were accepted 
by the trial court leading to conviction Of the two appellants as well as 
three others under Section 325 read with Section 149 and under Sections 
148A, 308/149 and 323/149 of the IPC. The Trial Court imposed 
punishment of rigorous imprisonment for th~ee years alongwith a fine of 
Rs.12,000/- each 'for the offence under Section 308/149 and lesser 
sentences including fines for the remaining offences. Rs.70,000/- out
·of the fine amount was ordered to be paid to the injured Budhram by 
way of compensation. The High Court heard the appeal of all the five 
convicts against their coqviction and sentence together with a criminal 
revision filed on behalf of the .injured B.udhram for converting the 
conviction of all forthe offence under Section 307 IPC and for enhanced 
punishment. The High Court considered the materials in detail and held 
the appellants as well as other three co-accused gtii lty of offence 
punishable cmly under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian 
Penal Code. While maintaining the convicti01i and sentence for the 
other minor offences, the High Court, for the' aforesaid major offence 
enhanced the sentence to RI for five years and.fine ofRs.20,000/- each 
and in default the concerned convict has to undergo further imprisonment 
for a period of 011e Year. 
. 
. 
.
BIJENDER@ PAPU AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
[SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
2. On behalf of the appellants it has been highlighted that the 
other three co-accused who were convicted for similar offences were 
ordered by the High Court to be released on probation of good conduct 
for the term of imprisonment. 
Although such relief was gr;mted to 
those three co-accused mainly on consideration of their old age varying 
between 85 to 75 years, the appellants claim parity on account of similar 
role assigned to all the five convicts. 
3. It was also highlighted that the occurrence is of 1997 and the 
ordeal of long trial has been faced by the appellants for about 19 years. 
4. The parity claimed by the appellants is misconceived. The 
concession shown to other three convicts was mainly on the ground of 
their extreme old age and that in our view justified the special treatment 
extended in their case. The High Court enhanced the sentence from 
. three years to five years RI for the main offence because it was 
concerned and moved by the suffering of the injured Budhram on account 
of the sole head injury caused by lathi. Budhram was brought to court 
but was unable to depose because of mental impairment suffered by 
him. Had the prosecution witnesses been able to pinpoint the accused 
who caused the head injury on Budhram, we would have definitely treated 
him to be responsible of a graver offence meriting higher punishment 
but unfortunately no such specific role has been assigned
to any of the 
five convicts. In such a situation, considering the other facts and 
circumstances, particularly the genesis of the occurrence which was on 
account of a dispute between the parties over a right to have a drain in 
a passage, we are persuaded to reduce the period of sentence for the 
offences under Section 325 read with Section 149 ofthe!PC in respect 
of both the appellants from five years to three years RI. However, the 
amount of fine artd conviction and sentence for other offences are left 
intact. 
5. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence of the appellants, 
.the Appeal is disposed of. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal disposed of. 
515 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G