Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld but sentence reduced to period undergone based on reformative principles.

The appellant’s brother lost a Nagar Panchayat election, leading the appellant to harbor a grudge against the complainant, Pawan Kosle.

On June 7, 2020, the appellant confronted the complainant, threatened him, and struck him with an empty liquor bottle, causing serious injuries to the complainant's cheek, jaw, and forehead.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine.

The appellant appealed to the High Court, challenging only the quantum of the sentence, having already served 3 years, 7 months, and 15 days in custody.

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is sustainable based on the medical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

Whether the sentence imposed should be reduced to the period already undergone based on the principles of reformative justice and the specific circumstances of the offender.

The court applied Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the attempt to commit murder.

Procedurally, the appeal was entertained under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Regarding sentencing, the court relied on the precedent set in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which emphasizes that the goal of punishment should be therapeutic and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive or "in terrorem".

The Court affirmed the conviction by noting that the testimonies of the victim (PW-1), eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-5), and the medical officer (PW-9) clearly established the appellant's involvement and the serious nature of the injuries caused by a hard object.

Regarding the sentence, the Court analyzed the appellant's profile: he is 42 years old, a laborer with limited education (4th class), and has no prior criminal antecedents.

Applying the principles from Mohammad Giasuddin, the Court reasoned that since the appellant had already served a substantial portion of his sentence (over 3.5 years of a 5-year term), the ends of justice would be met by prioritizing rehabilitation over further incarceration.

The court held that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone (3 years, 7 months, and 15 days), while the fine amount remained intact.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the court ordered the appellant's immediate release if not required in any other case.