Custodial sentence reduced to period already undergone while conviction is affirmed.

The appellant was convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, under Sections 458 and 307 of the IPC and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000 under each section, with the sentences to run concurrently

The prosecution case was that the appellant assaulted the victim, Chandrahas, while he was sleeping in his home; the victim identified the appellant, and the injuries were supported by medical evidence

In appeal under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, the appellant did not challenge his conviction and sought reduction of sentence, relying on his age at the time of the incident and the period already spent in custody

1. Whether the trial court’s findings of guilt under Sections 458 and 307 of the IPC warranted interference

2. Whether the appellant’s custodial sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fine

The appeal was brought under Section 415(2) of the BNSS

The appellant’s convictions were under Sections 458 and 307 of the IPC

The Court referred to Section 481 of the BNSS in directing the appellant to furnish a personal bond and an undertaking for the specified period

No precedent or separate sentencing test was cited; the Court assessed the sentence in light of the appellant’s age, the time elapsed since the 2020 incident, and the period already served

The Court found the victim’s identification evidence, corroboration from his grandfather, and supporting medical evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions; it therefore affirmed the trial court’s findings

On sentence, it considered that the appellant was 21 at the time of the incident, had spent more than 15 months in custody, and had already served the periods specified in the judgment. It concluded that further detention was unnecessary and reduced the custodial sentence to the period already undergone

The Court directed the appellant’s release forthwith unless required in another case and ordered him to furnish a ₹25,000 personal bond, effective for six months, with an undertaking to appear before the Supreme Court if notified of a relevant petition or application for leave