Prolonged pendency justified reducing Section 307 IPC imprisonment to time already undergone while enhancing the fine.

The appellant, Suresh Pasi, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad, in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No. 314 of 2009, for offences under Sections 324, 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, while he was acquitted under Section 326 IPC. Co-accused Ram Dev was acquitted of all charges.

The prosecution alleged that, during a dispute concerning the cutting of a Goolar tree situated in the complainant’s house, the appellant attacked the complainant with a banka on her neck, chest and thigh, causing multiple incised wounds.

The medical examination recorded seven injuries, including bone-deep and muscle-deep incised wounds on the neck, chest and thighs.

The complainant’s mother-in-law was examined as PW-2 and the attending doctor as PW-5; no other witness of fact was examined.

In the appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant did not challenge his conviction and sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone.

His custody certificate showed that he had undergone two years and eighteen days, including remission.

Whether, despite upholding the appellant’s conviction under Sections 324, 452 and 307 IPC, the sentence under Section 307 IPC should be reduced to the period already undergone in view of the prolonged passage of time and other mitigating circumstances?

Whether the fine imposed for the offence under Section 307 IPC should be enhanced while reducing the substantive sentence?

Whether the sentences imposed for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 IPC should also be interfered with?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. and considered sentencing independently from the determination of guilt.

It applied the principle that sentencing depends on factors including the nature and manner of the offence, the maximum statutory punishment, the age and circumstances of the accused, the time elapsed since the offence, prolonged pendency of proceedings, and the possibility of reformation.

Relying on K. Pounammal v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1784, the Court held that prolonged litigation may itself constitute mental suffering and that, where mitigating circumstances exist, imprisonment already undergone may be treated as adequate, subject to enhancement of fine.

It further relied on V.K. Verma v. CBI, (2014) 3 SCC 485, which recognises long delay in final adjudication as a mitigating circumstance justifying reduction of substantive imprisonment, while maintaining conviction and enhancing fine where appropriate.

The Court did not reassess the appellant’s guilt because the conviction was expressly not challenged.

In considering sentence, it noted the serious nature of the attack, including multiple incised injuries, one of which was bone-deep on the neck.

However, it also considered that the incident was more than seventeen years old, the appellant had already undergone two years and eighteen days in custody, the parties were related, and the prosecution allegations against the other alleged participants had not resulted in their conviction.

Applying the sentencing principles in K. Pounammal and V.K. Verma, the Court concluded that the prolonged passage of time and the appellant’s period of incarceration justified reducing the sentence under Section 307 IPC to the period already undergone.

Nevertheless, because the offence involved a serious assault, the Court enhanced the fine under Section 307 IPC from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 10,000, while finding no sufficient basis to disturb the sentences under Sections 324 and 452 IPC.

The appellant’s convictions under Sections 324, 452 and 307 IPC were upheld.

The sentences imposed for Sections 324 and 452 IPC were maintained.

The sentence under Section 307 IPC was modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone, namely two years and eighteen days, and the fine for that offence was enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 10,000.

The appellant was directed to comply with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. and execute bail bonds with sureties within four weeks, which would remain in force for six months in the event of notice from the Supreme Court in any appeal.