After 16-Year Ordeal, MP HC Cuts Jail Terms To Time Served For Men Convicted Of Assaulting Farmer Over Cattle-Crop Dispute, Upholds Convictions

On 7 March 2010, a dispute arose after cattle entered complainant Pehalwan’s field and damaged crops. The appellants assaulted him: Koksingh used a pharsa, while Kaptan Singh and Dharusingh used lathis. Munshi, who intervened, was also assaulted.

The trial court convicted Koksingh under Section 326 IPC and Kaptan Singh and Dharusingh under Section 326/34 IPC; all were also convicted under Sections 323/34 and 426 IPC. Each received custodial sentences and fines.

Raghuvir Singh died during the appeal, which abated against him.

The remaining appellants did not challenge their convictions, but sought reduction of their custodial sentences, relying on the time already served, their ages, the absence of proved prior convictions, and the length of time they had faced proceedings.

Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides the procedural basis for an appeal against conviction or sentence.

The convictions at issue were under Sections 326, 326/34, 323/34 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code.

In determining sentence, the Court considered the appellants’ time in custody, age, absence of proved previous convictions, and the duration of the proceedings as relevant circumstances.

No precedent was cited.

Since the appellants expressly did not challenge their convictions, the Court affirmed them.

In considering sentence, it found that the appellants had served approximately 42 days in custody, had no proved previous convictions, and had faced the proceedings for more than 16 years; it also took account of their ages.

The Court concluded that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the custodial sentences to the periods already served, while enhancing the fines.

It enhanced the fines as set out in paragraph 10, directed that the enhanced amounts be paid within two months, and ordered that amounts already deposited be adjusted. The judgment states that, in default of payment, the sentence imposed by the trial court would apply.

The appellants’ bail bonds were discharged, and the appeal was disposed of with these modifications.