Reduction of sentence for young first-time offender in Section 307 IPC conviction to promote reformative justice.

On January 25, 2023, the appellant, Arun Vishwakarma, and a juvenile allegedly assaulted Om Prakash Lovanshi with a knife and an iron rod near SS Convent, Bhopal.

The victim sustained stab injuries to his leg and waist.

Following a trial in ST No. 369/2023, the Sessions Judge, Bhopal, convicted the appellant on April 28, 2025, for offences under Sections 307 (Attempt to murder) and 294 (Obscene acts) of the IPC, and Section 25(1-b)(b) of the Arms Act.

The appellant was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for the Section 307 conviction.

The appellant challenged this judgment before the High Court, specifically limiting the plea to a reduction in the quantum of sentence.

Whether the substantive sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the IPC is proportionate given the appellant’s age, lack of criminal antecedents, and period of incarceration already undergone.

Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the right to appeal against a conviction.

Sections 307 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25(1-b)(b) of the Arms Act.

Sentencing principle of proportionality and the reformative theory of punishment, which dictates that the sentence must balance the gravity of the offence with the mitigating circumstances of the offender.

The Court noted that the appellant did not challenge the merits of the conviction, and upon review, found the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence to be sound.

In addressing the quantum of sentence, the Court evaluated several mitigating factors: the appellant was a young person, he had no prior criminal record or history as a habitual offender, and he had already served approximately two years and eleven months of his sentence.

The Court reasoned that while the conviction was justified, the ends of justice would be better served by a more reformative approach. Consequently, it determined that reducing the seven-year term to five years would satisfy the requirement for a proportionate sentence while acknowledging the appellant’s potential for rehabilitation.

The Court ordered the substantive jail sentence under Section 307 IPC be reduced from seven years to five years of rigorous imprisonment. It further directed that all other fines and default sentences imposed by the Trial Court remain unchanged and that the appellant be released upon completion of the five-year term if not required in any other case.