Sentence modified to period already undergone where appellant served most of the term for Section 325 IPC.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in SC No.34/2021 for an incident occurring on February 15, 2018.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant intercepted the victim, Anand @ Tinku Malviya, demanded money for liquor, and upon refusal, assaulted him with a wooden plank, causing injuries to his head, wrists, and calves.

The trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him to one year of Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

The appellant filed this appeal challenging the judgment, specifically seeking a reduction in sentence while not contesting the conviction on merits.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 325 of the IPC is legally sustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether the sentence of one year R.I. should be modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant.

The court applied Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) regarding the maintainability of the appeal against conviction.

Substantively, the court applied Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which provides punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

The court also exercised its appellate discretion regarding sentencing, balancing the nature of the offence against the period of custody already served.

The court conducted a de novo review of the trial records, including witness statements and documentary evidence, to ensure the conviction's validity despite the appellant's primary focus on sentence reduction.

It concluded that the trial court’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, thus upholding the conviction under Section 325 IPC.

On the matter of sentencing, the court noted that the appellant had already served approximately 11 months of his one-year sentence.

Given the circumstances and the duration already served, the court reasoned that justice would be sufficiently met by modifying the sentence to the period already undergone, rather than requiring the appellant to serve the remaining few weeks.

The court upheld the fine of Rs. 2,000/-, stipulating that default in payment would require the appellant to serve the remaining sentence. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case.