Appellant’s sentence reduced to time already served after more than eight and a half years’ imprisonment.

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, under Sections 457 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for breaking into the victim’s hut and raping her in July 2012.

He was sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the Section 457 offence and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for the Section 376(1) offence, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The prosecution examined six witnesses; the appellant denied the allegations in his Section 313 CrPC examination.

In appeal under Section 374 CrPC, the appellant challenged the reliability of the evidence and the conviction.

At the hearing, the Court was informed that he had undergone more than eight and a half years’ imprisonment.

Whether the evidence on record established the appellant’s guilt under Sections 457 and 376(1) IPC.

Whether, having regard to the period of imprisonment already undergone and the circumstances of the case, the appellant’s custodial sentence should be reduced.

The appeal was brought under Section 374 CrPC, which provides for an appeal against conviction.

The appellant’s convictions were under Sections 457 and 376(1) IPC.

The judgment does not cite any precedent or set out a separate legal test for assessing the evidence or modifying sentence; it states that the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone having regard to that period and the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court noted that the vaginal-swab report recorded no spermatozoa and that the victim testified that she had settled the dispute because the appellant was her husband’s relative; it observed that the question of consent had not been clarified.

It also noted that PWs 2, 3 and 4 supported the victim’s account that she had informed them of the incident.

The Court did not, however, set aside the conviction or find the appellant not guilty.

Instead, focusing on the fact that he had served more than eight and a half years and that the prosecution had identified no adverse circumstance warranting further incarceration, it concluded that justice would be served by reducing the custodial sentence to the period already undergone.

The Court directed that he be released forthwith if not required in another case.

It further provided that, if he had already been released on remission, that release would stand and the appeal would be treated as closed.