Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone for Section 307 Offense Based on Verified Compromise and Long Pedency

The appellants, Saghir Ahmad and Mohammad Iliyas, were convicted by the Trial Court on September 5, 1985, for an offense under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment

The prosecution alleged that on May 24, 1981, the appellants entered a marriage party and opened fire, resulting in a gunshot injury to Smt. Dharmi Devi

During the pendency of the appeal, the injured party (Smt. Dharmi) filed an affidavit in 1986 stating the injuries were minor, the FIR was lodged under police pressure, and she had entered into a compromise with the appellants to maintain communal harmony

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, verified this compromise on January 25, 1993

By the time of the final hearing in 2026, the case was 45 years old and the appellants had become senior citizens

1. Whether the custodial sentence of a convict can be reduced to the period already undergone in light of a verified compromise between the parties in a non-compoundable offense

2. Whether the lapse of a significant period (41 years since conviction) and the advanced age of the appellants justify a modification of the sentence

The Court applied Section 374(2) of the CrPC regarding criminal appeals and Section 307/34 of the IPC regarding the attempt to murder

It primarily relied on the principle of judicial discretion in sentencing, emphasizing that punishment should be just, adequate, and proportionate to the gravity of the offense as held in State of M.P. v. Bablu and Abdul Waheed v. State of U.P.

The Court further applied precedents from the Supreme Court, including Labh Singh v. State of Haryana and Manjappa v. State of Karnataka, which establish that for decades-old cases involving senior citizens, reformative justice may outweigh further incarceration.

The Court observed that while the guilt of the appellants was established by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the specific circumstances surrounding the 45-year delay and the parties' mutual settlement warranted a deviation from the original sentence.

The Court noted the injured victim's own admission via affidavit that the injuries were "minor/simple" and the parties had "come to terms"

Drawing from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reasoned that sending 80-year-old appellants back to jail after 41 years on bail would serve no reformative purpose, as Indian criminal law focuses on reformation rather than corporeal punishment

The Court balanced the need for public confidence in the efficacy of the system against the reality that the appellants were not habitual criminals and the incident was an isolated event from the distant past

The High Court partly allowed the appeal by maintaining the conviction but modifying the sentence. The appellants' bail bonds and sureties were discharged