Headnote: Sentence of five years reduced to two years considering the convict’s tribal background, lack of criminal antecedents, and reformative principles.

On the night of March 23, 2025, a police tent at a bus stand mosque in Chhatarpur was set on fire.

The appellant was implicated based on video footage.

Following investigation, the appellant was tried and convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 3598/2025 on December 17, 2025.

He was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine for damaging public property.

The appellant filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence, though at the hearing, the counsel limited the challenge solely to the quantum of sentence.

1. Whether the substantive sentence of five years’ RI imposed on the appellant is proportionate given the mitigating circumstances and his socio-economic background.

Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 374(2) of the CrPC, 1973) regarding the right to appeal conviction.

Section 326G of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) [mischief by fire/explosive substance] and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The Court relied upon the judicial principle of proportionality in sentencing, emphasizing that punishment must be both proportionate to the offence and reformative in nature.

The Court observed that the conviction was based on a proper appreciation of evidence, specifically the video footage, and thus did not interfere with the finding of guilt.

In evaluating the sentence, the Court considered several mitigating factors: the appellant belongs to the Adivasi community and is impoverished; he has no prior criminal antecedents or history of being a habitual offender; and he had already served approximately one year and four months of his sentence.

Applying the principle of proportionate sentencing, the Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be met by a more lenient term than the original five years.

The Court ordered that the appellant be released upon completion of the modified two-year term, provided he is not required in any other case, while the fine and default stipulations remained unchanged.