Conviction under Section 323/34 IPC upheld, but sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

On 18 October 2009, the appellants and co-accused Ramlal Yadav allegedly abused and assaulted Sundar Lal during a dispute concerning drums and bands played during the Gouri-Goura Pooja at Thakre Chowk, Raipur.

The assault was allegedly committed with a batta, hands and fists, and resulted in two simple head injuries to Sundar Lal.

An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B read with Section 34 IPC.

A counter-case arising from the same occurrence was also registered and tried separately.

The trial Court framed charges under Sections 294 and 323/34 IPC, acquitted the appellants under Section 294 IPC, but convicted each of them under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year, a fine of ₹1,000, and, in default, three months’ rigorous imprisonment.

In appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellants did not challenge their conviction and confined their submissions to reduction of sentence, relying on the simple nature of the injuries, the trivial and sudden nature of the dispute, and the period already undergone in custody.

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC was sustainable on the evidence on record.

Whether, having regard to the simple injuries, the circumstances of the occurrence, and the period already undergone, the substantive sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment should be reduced.

Section 323 IPC penalises voluntarily causing hurt, while Section 34 IPC attributes joint liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. confers appellate jurisdiction over convictions by a Sessions Court.

The appellate court may modify the sentence after considering the nature of the offence, the injuries caused, the surrounding circumstances, and the period of incarceration already undergone.

Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires an accused released on bail after conviction to furnish bonds that remain in force for six months.

No judicial precedent was relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that Sundar Lal, the injured witness, specifically attributed the assault to the appellants, and that his testimony was corroborated by Pradeep Kumar and Kumar Dhruv.

The medical evidence of Dr. Tarun Kumar Dhruv established that Sundar Lal sustained two simple injuries in the temporal/occipital region.

This evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt under Sections 323/34 IPC, and the conviction therefore required no interference.

On sentence, the Court considered that the injuries were simple, the incident arose suddenly over a trivial dispute, and the appellants had already undergone custody from 15 December 2009 to 29 December 2009 and from 30 August 2011 to 17 October 2011, amounting to more than two months.

Since the State did not oppose the request for reduction, the Court concluded that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

The fine of ₹1,000 imposed by the trial Court was not disturbed.

The appellants’ bail bonds were directed to remain in force for a further period of six months under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The appeal was partly allowed.