Culpable homicide conviction sustained but sentence reduced to period undergone due to lack of premeditation and decade-long trial.

On the night of 14/15.12.2013, the injured, Nikhil Deopa, visited the rented accommodation of the Appellant and other students.

At approximately 3:00 AM, following a sudden altercation after consuming liquor, the Appellant and a co-accused allegedly assaulted the injured with an iron rod and sickle.

The injured sustained head injuries and fractures.

Based on the report by PW2, an FIR was registered under Sections 308 and 324 r/w 34 IPC.

The trial court convicted the Appellant on 19.04.2017, sentencing him to four years' rigorous imprisonment.

The Appellant appealed, challenging the conviction based on witness inconsistencies and requesting a sentence reduction due to the decade-long pendency of the case.

1. Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 308 and 324 read with 34 of the IPC is sustainable given the inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

2. Whether the sentence awarded by the trial court is excessive considering the mitigating circumstances and the lapse of time since the incident.

Section 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide) and Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) read with Section 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The testimony of a "hostile witness" is not discarded in toto and can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution.

The principle of the greater evidentiary value of an "injured witness".

The principle that punishment must balance the gravity of the offense with mitigating factors, serving both punitive and reformative purposes.

The court found the conviction sound because the testimony of the injured witness (PW6) directly implicated the Appellant and was corroborated by medical evidence showing head injuries and fractures.

Although PW3 was declared hostile, the court held that the injured witness's account carried sufficient weight to establish guilt.

The court noted several mitigating factors: the incident arose from a "sudden quarrel" among intoxicated young students without premeditation or prior enmity.

The Appellant had no criminal antecedents and had not misused his bail during the decade-long proceedings, and the appeal had been pending since 2017.

The court determined that while the nature of the weapons (iron rod and sickle) was serious, the reformative aspect of law justified a modification of the sentence.

The Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment under Section 308 read with 34 IPC to the period already undergone by the Appellant.