Introduction:

The case of Razia Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, decided by the Supreme Court on August 3, 2023, deals with the conviction of a social worker for offences under Sections 451, 353, and 333 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused was found guilty of trespassing into a government office and assaulting a public servant. While the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, it reduced the sentence on humanitarian grounds, acknowledging her age, social background, and the long delay in the judicial process.

Background:

In December 1992, Razia Khan, a social worker associated with a political party, forcefully entered the Bhopal office of the Directorate of Women and Child Development during an official meeting led by the Commissioner. She threw a file at the Commissioner, shouted abuses, and injured Deputy Director Sajni Batra when she intervened.
She was convicted by the Sessions Court for:

• Section 451 IPC: House trespass

• Section 353 IPC: Assaulting a public servant

• Section 333 IPC: Causing grievous hurt to deter a public servant

The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced her imprisonment to six months for each offence. The case reached the Supreme Court, limited to the question of sentencing.

Key Developments:

• The defence did not challenge the conviction but sought leniency in sentencing.

• The Supreme Court acknowledged the 30-year delay in proceedings and the appellant’s law-abiding life since the incident.

• Despite the gravity of the offence, the Court reduced her sentence to the period already undergone, citing age, conduct, and passage of time as mitigating factors.

Issues:

Whether the sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 451, 353, and 333 IPC should be modified considering mitigating circumstances such as her age, social status, conduct, and the significant delay in trial and appeal proceedings.

Current Status (Judgment):

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, upheld Razia Khan’s conviction but modified her sentence:

• Conviction maintained under Sections 451, 353, and 333 IPC.

• Sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

• Request for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act was denied considering the seriousness of the offence against a public servant.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court adopted a balanced approach by affirming the conviction while exercising judicial compassion. The judgment demonstrates the Court’s reformative approach to sentencing, emphasizing that while assaults on public servants cannot be excused, punishment must also account for delay, age, and rehabilitation. The decision reinforces that justice must not only punish but also consider fairness and humanity.