Prolonged proceedings justified reducing a Section 325 IPC sentence to time already undergone, subject to fine payment.

On 9 August 2012, a dispute arose between the parties concerning construction of a house and boundary on disputed land. When Shanti Devi objected, the accused allegedly abused and assaulted her; Lal Babu Mahto struck her on the head with a chapad. When her son, the informant and injured witness, intervened, Bhaddu Mahto allegedly assaulted him with a sword on his right hand/wrist, while the other accused used lathis

An FIR was registered in Chhapra Muffasil P.S. Case No. 182 of 2012 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 504/34 IPC. Following investigation and trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the two injured witnesses and the examining doctor

The Trial Court convicted Lal Babu Mahto under Section 325 IPC, Bhaddu Mahto under Section 324 IPC, and Lakshman Mahto and Angad Mahto under Section 323 IPC, while acquitting all the accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC

The convicted persons challenged the judgment and sentence in appeal.

Whether the prosecution proved the occurrence and the individual participation of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the injured witnesses’ testimony and medical evidence?

Whether the convictions under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC and the sentences imposed by the Trial Court warranted interference in appeal?

Whether, having regard to the passage of time, the land-dispute background, and the appellant’s prolonged criminal proceedings, Lal Babu Mahto’s substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone?

The Court applied Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC, concerning voluntarily causing simple hurt, hurt by dangerous weapons or means, and voluntarily causing grievous hurt, respectively; it also considered the original charges under Sections 341, 307 and 504/34 IPC

The Court relied on the settled evidentiary principle that the testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries significant evidentiary weight, particularly where it is corroborated by medical evidence.

It further applied the appellate principle that individual criminal liability must be established through reliable attribution of the specific overt act, and that reasonable doubt regarding such attribution must enure to the accused.

In sentencing, the Court considered the nature of the dispute, the lapse of time, the appellant’s age and the prolonged pendency of the proceedings as relevant mitigating circumstances

The Court found that the prosecution had established the occurrence and the injuries through the evidence of Shanti Devi and the informant, both injured witnesses, corroborated by the medical testimony of the examining doctor

The land dispute and the evidence on record supported the conclusion that the appellants had participated in the incident.

However, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to Lakshman Mahto, Angad Mahto and Bhaddu Mahto concerning the precise individual attribution of criminal acts and consequently set aside their convictions and sentences

In respect of Lal Babu Mahto, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 325 IPC, but treated the long passage of time since the 2012 occurrence, the appellant’s age, and the agony of protracted proceedings as sufficient grounds to modify the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, subject to payment of the fine

Lal Babu Mahto’s conviction under Section 325 IPC was upheld, but his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, subject to deposit of the fine of Rs. 5,000 before the District Legal Services Authority, Chapra, within two months; default would result in one month’s simple imprisonment

Lakshman Mahto, Angad Mahto and Bhaddu Mahto were acquitted, and their convictions and sentences were set aside

The acquitted appellants were discharged from their bail bonds, while Lal Babu Mahto was to be discharged upon proof of payment of the fine