Affirming conviction under Section 326 IPC while reducing sentence to period undergone due to protracted litigation.

The petitioners were originally convicted by the JMFC, Mauganj, in 2013 for an incident occurring approximately 25 years prior involving an assault on two victims, Kallu (PW-2) and Vishwanath (PW-1), with a Lathi and an axe over a dispute regarding the construction of a hut

On appeal, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj, modified the judgment on 19/04/2014, acquitting the petitioners under Section 148 of the IPC but convicting them under Sections 326/34 and 323/34 of the IPC

The petitioners were sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment

During the pendency of this revision, Petitioner 1 (Ram Phal Mudha) died on 23/06/2018

Petitioner 2 (Munni Lal Mudha) sought a reduction in sentence, having already served over three and a half months in custody

1. Whether the criminal revision in respect of Petitioner 1 abates due to his demise during the proceedings

2. Whether the conviction of Petitioner 2 under Sections 326/34 and 323/34 of the IPC is sustainable given that the police failed to record the statement of the grievously injured victim

3. Whether the jail sentence of Petitioner 2 should be reduced to the period already undergone considering the lapse of 25 years since the incident

The Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.

It applied Sections 326/34 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons with common intention) and 323/34 (voluntarily causing hurt with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code

The Court also relied on the principle of adverse inference against the prosecution when a material witness's statement (the injured party) is not recorded

The Court first noted that Petitioner 1’s revision abated following his death in 2018

Regarding Petitioner 2, the Court observed that while ten other accused persons had been acquitted, the evidence supported the conviction of Petitioner 2 for the assault

However, the Court identified a significant procedural lapse: the police failed to record the statement of Vishwanath (PW-1), the victim who suffered grievous injuries. The Court held that an adverse inference deserved to be drawn against the prosecution for this omission

Nevertheless, finding no gross error in the Appellate Court's finding of guilt, the conviction was affirmed

Regarding the sentence, the Court reasoned that since the incident occurred over 25 years ago and the petitioner had already suffered more than three and a half months of incarceration, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already served

The Court affirmed the conviction of Petitioner 2 under Sections 326/34 and 323/34 of the IPC but modified the sentence to the period already undergone (approximately three and a half months) while maintaining the fine imposed by the lower court

Petitioner 2’s bail bonds and surety bonds were ordered to be discharged