Sentence Commuted to Period Undergone Subject to Victim Compensation Considering Lapse of Long Duration Since Incident

On June 20, 1999, the appellant, Rajendra Uraon, assaulted the informant, Rambrich Uraon, on the head with a Tangi (axe) while the informant was sitting at his door.

The motive was a land dispute involving sharecropping.

The trial court, via judgment dated April 8, 2009, convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this conviction and sentence, noting that he had already served six and a half months in custody, the litigation had lasted 26 years, and the injured victim had since passed away in 2021.

During the appeal, the appellant's counsel confined the plea primarily to the reduction of the sentence.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is sustainable given the facts of the case?

2. Whether the sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment should be modified considering the lapse of time, the appellant's antecedents, and the death of the victim?

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the attempt to murder, necessitating the proof of intention or knowledge and an act toward the commission of murder.

The court also exercised its appellate discretion in sentencing, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the period of custody already undergone, the time elapsed since the occurrence (26 years), and the principles of victim compensation under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court noted that the appellant did not challenge the merits of the conviction under Section 307 IPC, leading to the upholding of the trial court's finding on guilt.

In analyzing the sentence, the Court observed that the incident occurred over 26 years ago and the appellant had "settled in the mainstream of life".

While the injury was grievous and caused by an axe, the Court considered that the appellant had no prior criminal record and had already served six and a half months in jail.

The Court reasoned that the interests of justice would be served by balancing the reduction of the substantive prison sentence with a requirement for the appellant to pay monetary compensation to the victim's widow (P.W.-1), thereby addressing both the restorative and punitive aspects of sentencing.

The High Court dismissed the appeal on merits but modified the sentence. The sentence of five years was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. The Court further ordered the appellant to deposit ₹25,000 as victim compensation to be paid to the wife of the deceased informant (P.W.-1) within two months, failing which the trial court is directed to realize the amount. The appellant was discharged from his bail bonds.