Convictions for assault and robbery upheld, but sentences reduced to the period already undergone.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge under Sections 324/34 and 394/34 IPC for his role in an assault and robbery in February 2011, and sentenced to concurrent terms of one year and four years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

The trial court acquitted him of the charges of gang rape, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

On appeal, counsel did not challenge the convictions on merits but sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone.

The victim had died before her statement could be recorded at trial; the evidence considered by the High Court included her husband’s testimony, the medical evidence, and recovery of Rs. 350 from the appellant.

Whether the appellant’s convictions under Sections 324/34 and 394/34 IPC should be interfered with, despite the appeal not challenging them on merits.

Whether the appellant’s sentences should be reduced to the period already undergone.

The Court considered Sections 324/34 IPC, concerning voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means with common intention, and 394/34 IPC, concerning voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit robbery with common intention.

In assessing the convictions, it considered the medical evidence, the prosecution’s proof that part of the looted money was recovered from the appellant, and his failure to explain that recovery in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.

The Court upheld the convictions, relying on the doctor’s evidence of the victim’s injuries and the trial court’s findings concerning the appellant’s participation in the assault and the recovery of part of the stolen money from him, which he did not explain under Section 313 CrPC.

For sentence, the Court considered that the incident occurred in 2011, that the appellant had been in custody from 10 February 2011 to 4 March 2014—about three years and 25 days—and the totality of the circumstances.

The appeal was allowed in part.