Concurrent convictions upheld in revision; sentences reduced to the period already undergone.

The petitioners were prosecuted in Uchkagaon P.S. Case No. 78 of 2003 for offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), arising from an allegation that they assaulted the informant and snatched his bicycle and ₹2,100.

The trial court convicted the petitioners under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 342 IPC and imposed concurrent sentences, including imprisonment and fines.

In Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2023, the appellate court affirmed the convictions under Sections 323, 341 and 342 IPC, acquitted the petitioners under Section 324 IPC, and modified the default sentences relating to the fines.

In revision, the petitioners challenged the concurrent findings, contending, inter alia, that the informant had not been examined, the prosecution witnesses were interested, prior enmity had not been properly considered, and the proceedings had continued for more than 23 years.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction, particularly in view of the alleged deficiencies in the prosecution evidence?

2. Whether, having regard to the petitioners’ period of incarceration, age, medical condition and the prolonged pendency of the criminal proceedings, their sentences should be reduced to the period already undergone?

The Court applied Sections 323, 341 and 342 IPC, relating respectively to voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement; the petitioners’ conviction under Section 324 IPC had already been set aside by the appellate court.

The Court reiterated the established principle governing criminal revision that where the trial and appellate courts have concurrently appreciated the evidence and recorded findings of guilt, the revisional court has very limited scope to reappraise the facts or interfere absent a manifest illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice.

In sentencing, the Court applied the principle that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone where the circumstances of the case, including prolonged litigation, age and incarceration already suffered, justify such relief.

The Court found that both subordinate courts had examined and evaluated the evidence in detail and had considered the grounds subsequently raised by the petitioners, including the evidentiary objections.

Since the convictions under Sections 323, 341 and 342 IPC were supported by concurrent findings, the Court held that the petitioners could not re-agitate the factual issues in revision and that there was insufficient basis for interference.

However, while maintaining the convictions, the Court considered that the petitioners had already undergone more than four months of imprisonment, had faced the criminal proceedings since 2003, and were senior citizens suffering from age-related ailments.

These mitigating circumstances justified reducing the substantive sentences to the period already undergone, while retaining the fines.

The convictions of the petitioners under Sections 323, 341 and 342 IPC, as affirmed by the appellate court, were upheld, while the conviction under Section 324 IPC had already been set aside by that court.

The substantive sentences were reduced to the period already undergone, but the fine sentences were affirmed.

As the petitioners were in custody, the Court directed their release forthwith, unless they were required in any other case.

I.A. No. 1 of 2026 was disposed of and the lower-court records were directed to be returned.