Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KALIBEN RABARI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Decided
27 March 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 331 · 2009 INSC 421

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 331, margin G

2

The only question of importance which is raised by the A learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court while reducing the sentence from 10 years to two and half years in respect of offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part I to 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) also reduced compensation from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no basis for such reduction after the custodial period was substantially reduced. The High Court in fact refused to extend the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 (in short the Probation Act) to the accused persons. By applying the parameters of c Sec.357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,(in short the 'Code'), the trial Court had fixed the quantum of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. Learned counsel for the accused respondent supported the judgment of the High Court.

pp. 331–332, margin G

3

We find that in a case of this nature where the High Court has altered conviction from Section 304 Part I to 304 Part II IPC and has considerably reduced the period of custodial sentence, there was no basis for reducing the compensation as awarded, i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. No reason has been indicated to justify the reduction. Accordingly, we enhance the quantum of compensation to Rs. 5 lakhs. The balance of amount, if any, required to be deposited shall be so done within a period of four weeks from today.

p. 332, margin B

4

The appeal is disposed of. N.J. Appeal disposed of.

p. 332, margin E