Sentence for Section 326 IPC reduced to period undergone while enhancing fine payable as victim compensation.

On April 6, 2014, the appellants, under the pretext of performing a ritual to exorcise an "evil spirit," forcibly placed the palm of the complainant’s daughter into a burning havan kund.

The victim suffered severe burn injuries leading to an infection that necessitated the surgical amputation of her hand at the wrist, resulting in permanent disability.

The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Teonthar) convicted the appellants on July 4, 2017, under Sections 326, 506-II, and 190/34 of the IPC, sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹5,000 each.

The appellants challenged this judgment, though during the appellate proceedings, their counsel contested only the quantum of the sentence, not the conviction.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing grievous hurt is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the substantive jail sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone in light of the appellants' conduct, age, and the 12-year duration of the legal proceedings.

Section 326 of the IPC, which pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

The court considered the sentencing powers under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The court utilized Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. to direct that the fine amount be paid to the victim as compensation for the injuries sustained.

The High Court concurred with the trial court’s marshalling of evidence, finding no grounds to interfere with the conviction under Section 326 IPC as the injuries and the act were clearly established.

In evaluating the sentence, the Court adopted a compensatory and rehabilitative approach. It noted that the incident occurred in 2014, and the appellants had been facing trial for approximately 12 years.

The Court took into account that Ramakant had served approximately five years in custody and Praveen had served one year and eight months.

Given that the appellants were first-time offenders, were cooperative during the trial, and were of relatively young age at the time of the offence, the Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already served while increasing the fine amount to provide better compensation to the victim.

The substantive jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by each appellant.

The fine was enhanced from ₹5,000 to ₹8,000 each, with the stipulation that the total fine amount be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.

The appellants’ bail bonds were discharged, subject to the payment of the enhanced fine within two months.