01Facts
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, for offences under Sections 307/34, 325/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arising from an assault at a village bus stand on 28 September 1998.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–5They were sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34, with lesser concurrent sentences for the other offences. Appellant No. 3’s appeal had abated.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–5In the appeal, appellants Nos. 1 and 2 did not challenge their convictions and sought reduction of sentence, relying on the time already served, the passage of more than 28 years, and their conduct since the offence
pp. 1–3, 6–7 · ¶ 1–5, 10–12, 1702Issues
i.Whether the conviction of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 307/34, 325/34 and 323/34 IPC warranted interference, despite their not challenging it in appeal
p. 6 · ¶ 10, 15ii.Whether the sentences should be reduced to the period already undergone in light of the circumstances advanced by the appellants
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 11–12, 16–2003Law Applied
The convictions were under Sections 307/34, 325/34 and 323/34 IPC, concerning attempt to murder, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, and voluntarily causing hurt, respectively, read with common intention under Section 34 IPC
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–3The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to review the sentence and considered the time elapsed, the period already served, the appellants’ prior and subsequent conduct, and their ages when determining whether the sentences should be reduced
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 16–20Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 323Section 325Section 307Section 34
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161Section 173
04Reasoning
Although the appellants confined their challenge to sentence, the Court reviewed the record and found the prosecution evidence consistent and sufficient to sustain the convictions; it therefore declined to interfere with them
p. 6 · ¶ 15On sentence, the Court considered that the incident occurred about 28 years earlier, the appellants had faced prolonged proceedings, Brijpal had served two months and seven days and Sanjay one year and nine months, and neither had been prosecuted for another offence during the intervening period. It also noted their ages and treated the sentence as harsh in the circumstances
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 12, 16–1905Holding
The Court upheld the convictions under Sections 307/34, 325/34 and 323/34 IPC, but partly allowed the appeal by modifying the sentence to the period already undergone.
p. 8 · ¶ 19–21Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.
p. 8 · ¶ 19–21Original Court PDF
Brijpal & Ors.vsState Of Hry.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
