After decades, sentence may be confined to incarceration already undergone when further imprisonment serves no useful purpose.

On 13 January 1985, the petitioner allegedly assaulted Chaila Martha (P.W.7) with a knife on his head and right hand due to a previous grudge, causing bleeding injuries and necessitating medical treatment and referral to the District Headquarters Hospital, Puri.

On the written report of Harihar Martha (P.W.1), an FIR was registered and the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sections 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Trial Court convicted him under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment, and under Section 326 IPC sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000.

During the appeal, the Section 323 conviction was compounded, while the Section 326 conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC; the substantive sentence was reduced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and the fine was set aside.

In revision under Sections 401 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner did not challenge the conviction on merits but sought confinement of the sentence to the eight days already undergone.

Whether the concurrent findings of guilt, as modified by the Appellate Court, under Section 324 IPC disclosed any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Whether, considering the petitioner’s age, the lapse of more than three decades since the occurrence, and the period already undergone, the sentence should be reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone.

The Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 401 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits correction of jurisdictional errors, illegality, or perversity but does not ordinarily justify reappreciation of evidence merely because another view may be possible.

The substantive offence was Section 324 IPC, concerning voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

The Court relied on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, for the principles governing limited interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The Court also applied sentencing considerations, including the petitioner’s age, the substantial delay since the occurrence, the period of imprisonment already undergone, and the absence of any subsequent criminal involvement brought on record.

The Court found no perversity in the appreciation of evidence by either the Trial Court or the Appellate Court.

The prosecution had examined ten witnesses, including the informant, occurrence witnesses, the injured witness, the Investigating Officer, and doctors, and the conviction under Section 324 IPC had already been affirmed after the Appellate Court altered the original Section 326 conviction.

Applying the restricted scope of revisional review stated in Amit Kapoor, the Court declined to interfere with the conviction.

However, for sentencing, it considered that the occurrence was from 1985, the petitioner was approximately 63 years old, he had already undergone eight days of incarceration, and there was no material showing subsequent involvement in any offence.

In those circumstances, the Court concluded that requiring further imprisonment after more than three decades would serve no useful purpose.

Nevertheless, it modified the sentence by confining it to the period of imprisonment already undergone, namely eight days, and disposed of the criminal revision accordingly.