Court affirms conviction but modifies sentences to time served and fines after prolonged litigation.

The appeal arose from a 2004 dispute between the appellants, who are father and son, and the informant, the first appellant’s brother, concerning the sale of bamboo after partition.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants and two female co-accused assaulted the informant and his wife

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 324, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing each to two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 324/34, with no separate sentence under Section 341; the female co-accused received the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

In appeal, the appellants did not challenge their convictions and sought only reduction of sentence.

The first appellant had not served time in custody, while the second had been in custody for 24 days

Whether the appellants’ custodial sentences should be modified in light of the passage of time, the custody already served and the circumstances of the dispute.

Whether the conviction should be disturbed when the appellants confined their appeal to the question of sentence.

The convictions were under Sections 324, 341 and 34 IPC, concerning voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, wrongful restraint and common intention, respectively.

The court considered sentence modification in light of the circumstances of the case, including the age of the occurrence, the appellants’ periods in custody, the nature of the family dispute and their family responsibilities.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, had been applied to the female co-convicts by the trial court.

The court declined to examine the conviction on merits because the appellants had not challenged it, and affirmed the convictions.

On sentence, it noted that the dispute arose between two brothers over bamboo, that the occurrence dated to 2004 and that the appellants had faced criminal proceedings for more than two decades.

It also took account of the second appellant’s 24 days in custody, the first appellant’s lack of custody, and the appellants’ role as family breadwinners; the doctor had also found tenderness in the second appellant’s scrotum.

Considering these circumstances, the court found sentence modification appropriate and imposed fines.

The fines were to be deposited within eight weeks of receipt of the judgment, failing which they could be recovered in accordance with law.

The appellants, already on bail, were discharged from their bail bonds.