Despite affirming the Section 326 IPC conviction, the Court reduced imprisonment to the period already undergone.

On 2 August 1993, the petitioner allegedly assaulted Bisu Das (P.W.6) near Duan Bandha with a kati, causing bleeding injuries to his left shoulder, forearm, and palm.

The trial court acquitted him under Sections 341 and 324 IPC but convicted him under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹500, and three months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court in revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., principally seeking conversion of the conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 IPC.

Whether the conviction under Section 326 IPC required interference or conversion to an offence under Section 324 IPC on the ground of improper appreciation of evidence.

Whether, having regard to the petitioner’s period of incarceration, the age of the case, the petitioner’s age, and the absence of any subsequent criminal involvement, the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

The Court exercised its limited revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to examine the correctness and legality of the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Section 326 IPC concerns voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon or means, while Section 324 IPC concerns voluntarily causing hurt by such weapon or means; the petitioner sought alteration of the conviction from the former to the latter.

Section 357 Cr.P.C. permits payment of a fine as compensation to the victim, and Section 428 Cr.P.C. provides for set-off of pre-trial detention against the substantive sentence.

The Court further applied the sentencing principle that, where the offence occurred several decades earlier, the accused has already undergone substantial incarceration, is of advanced age, and has no subsequent criminal antecedents brought on record, further imprisonment may serve no useful purpose.

On scrutiny of the evidence, including the testimony of the injured witness, the medical evidence, and the other prosecution materials, the Court found no infirmity in the concurrent appreciation of evidence by the trial and appellate courts.

It therefore declined to alter the conviction under Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC.

However, for sentencing purposes, the Court considered that the occurrence had taken place in 1993, the petitioner was approximately 51 years old, he had undergone about three months’ incarceration, and the prosecution had not shown any subsequent involvement in crime.

In these circumstances, the Court held that directing further imprisonment after more than two decades would serve no useful purpose.

The petitioner’s sentence was confined to the period already undergone, and the fine of ₹500 was set aside in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

The direction regarding set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. consequently remained applicable to the extent relevant.

The criminal revision was disposed of, and the fees of the learned Amicus Curiae were directed to be fixed and disbursed in accordance with the applicable Legal Services Authority schedule.