Jail sentence reduced to period undergone for Section 325 IPC conviction considering long pendency and lack of antecedents.

The applicants were accused of assaulting the complainant, Shera Khatik, on April 25, 2014, following a business dispute regarding the sale of marriage-related articles

The prosecution alleged the applicants used a stick, a steel object, fists, and kicks

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, convicted the applicants under Section 325 (two counts) of the IPC, sentencing them to two years of rigorous imprisonment

The applicants appealed to the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, who affirmed the conviction and sentence on June 30, 2017

The applicants subsequently filed this revision petition, though they limited their prayer to the reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone (13 days)

1. Whether the conviction of the applicants under Section 325 of the IPC was sustainable based on the evidence on record

2. Whether the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone (13 days) given the lapse of time, lack of criminal antecedents, and the age of the applicants at the time of the incident

Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes voluntarily causing grievous hurt

Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

The court relied on the principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manjappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 6 SCC 231, which provides guidance on proportionality and mitigating factors in sentencing

Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The court reviewed the testimonies of the complainant (PW-1) and eyewitness (PW-2), corroborated by the medical evidence from Dr. A.S. Khan (PW-8) and Dr. R.K. Jitpure (PW-9). It concluded that the trial and appellate courts correctly appreciated the evidence to sustain the conviction

the court noted several mitigating factors: the applicants were young (19 and 22 years) at the time of the incident, they had no prior criminal record, the dispute arose from a localized business rivalry between neighbors, and they had been facing litigation for approximately 12 years

Applying the Manjappa precedent, the court determined that the interest of justice would be served by reducing the jail term while maintaining the fine

It affirmed the conviction under Section 325 of the IPC but modified the sentence to the period of 13 days already undergone by the applicants

The fine amount and default stipulations imposed by the lower courts remain intact

The applicants’ bail bonds are to remain operative for six months pursuant to Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023