Appellate Court sets aside substantive jail sentence for first-time offenders, substituting imprisonment with enhanced fines.

On June 5, 2011, the appellants allegedly obstructed and assaulted the complainant and his wife while they were returning to their village.

On February 25, 2013, the Special Sessions Judge, Bhopal, convicted Appellants No. 1 and 4 under Sections 323/34, 427, and 341 of the IPC, and Appellants No. 3 and 5 under Sections 323/34 and 427 of the IPC.

During the pendency of this appeal, Appellant No. 2, Idrish Khan, died, leading to the abatement of the appeal regarding him.

The remaining appellants restricted their challenge solely to the quantum of the sentence, citing the 13-year lapse since the incident and their lack of criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the appeal on behalf of Appellant No. 2 survives following his death during the pendency of the proceedings.

2. Whether the substantive jail sentence of the appellants should be reduced or set aside given the passage of time, their cooperative conduct, and their status as first-time offenders.

Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the right of appeal against conviction.

Section 323 of the IPC (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), Section 341 (wrongful restraint), Section 427 (mischief causing damage), and Section 34 (common intention).

The court exercised its judicial discretion in sentencing, balancing the nature of the offense against mitigating factors such as the "ordeal of trial" spanning over a decade and the absence of prior criminal records.

The court noted that because the appellants did not assail the conviction on merits, the findings of the trial court regarding the guilt of the accused remained undisturbed.

In analyzing the sentence, the court weighed the fact that the incident occurred in 2011 and the appeal had been pending for 13 years.

The court observed that the appellants were first-time offenders who had cooperated during the trial and had already undergone a limited period of incarceration.

The court reasoned that in light of these mitigating circumstances, the "ends of justice" would be better served by substituting the substantive imprisonment with an enhanced fine, rather than returning the appellants to prison after such a prolonged period.

Regarding the remaining appellants (1, 3, 4, and 5), the court affirmed the conviction but set aside the substantive jail sentences.

The court ordered each appellant to deposit a fine of Rs. 3,000 (calculated as Rs. 1,000 per count for three counts) within one month, to be paid to the complainant.

The appellants' bail bonds were discharged, and the trial court's order regarding the disposal of property was affirmed.