After 23½ Years Of Litigation, P&H HC Upholds Attempt-to-Murder Conviction But Cuts Meat-Dispute Sentence From 5 Years To 9 Months 20 Days

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, for offences under Sections 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arising from an incident in which he allegedly struck Anil Kumar on the head with an iron rod following a dispute over the purchase of meat.

The trial court sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC, with the sentences to run concurrently.

In the appeal, the appellant expressly did not challenge the conviction and sought interference only with the sentence, submitting that he had undergone nine months and twenty days’ imprisonment and that the incident occurred more than 23 years earlier.

The State opposed sentence reduction.

The case concerned Sections 307 and 323 IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted.

The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to modify the sentence, considering factors including the time elapsed since the offence, the period already served, the appellant’s prior record and subsequent conduct, and the absence of a prescribed minimum sentence for the offences.

Although the appellant confined his challenge to sentence, the Court reviewed the record and found the prosecution evidence consistent and sufficient to sustain the conviction; it therefore found no basis to interfere with the trial court’s findings under Sections 307 and 323 IPC.

On sentence, the Court considered that the offence occurred about 23½ years earlier, the appellant had undergone nine months and twenty days’ imprisonment, he was a first offender, no minimum sentence was prescribed, he had not been prosecuted for another offence in the preceding five years, and he was approximately 49 years old.

It concluded that the sentence imposed was harsh in light of those circumstances and that the period already undergone would meet the ends of justice.

The appeal was partly allowed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.