Sentence may be reduced to period undergone given the accused's advanced age and settlement between parties.

The applicant was charged under Sections 323, 354, 294(b), and 506(2) of the IPC following an FIR at Mahemdavad Police Station

On 23.04.2016, the JMFC, Mahemdavad, convicted the applicant under Section 323 (6 months SI) and Section 354 (2 years RI), while acquitting him of other charges

The applicant appealed to the Sessions Court, Kheda, which dismissed the appeal on 06.10.2020

The applicant subsequently moved the High Court in revision, contending that the parties are relatives, a land dispute exists, the matter has been settled, and the applicant is now 86 years old

1. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction by the trial and appellate courts warrant interference under the limited revisional jurisdiction of the High Court

2. Whether the sentence imposed ought to be modified considering the settlement between parties, the age of the applicant, and the duration of the litigation

The court applied Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC regarding revisional jurisdiction, noting that the court cannot act as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate evidence unless there is a patent illegality

It relied on the precedent established in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, which defines the narrow scope of revisional powers

Substantively, the court considered Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the IPC

The Court observed that both the trial and Sessions courts properly appreciated the evidence and found no grounds to interfere with the conviction under revisional jurisdiction

However, regarding the quantum of sentence, the Court noted that for the Section 323 offence, the parties filed an affidavit of settlement on 27.04.2026

For the Section 354 offence, the Court evaluated mitigating factors: the applicant is a senior citizen (86 years old), the incident occurred 14 years prior (2012), and the applicant had already undergone 3 months and 13 days of judicial custody

Balancing the concurrent findings with the passage of time and the settlement, the Court determined that a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone was appropriate

The High Court partly allowed the revision application. The Court ordered the discharge of the previous surety bond and vacated any interim relief