Sentence reduced to period already undergone where appellant served most of five-year term.

On September 3, 2015, police encountered six individuals who had blocked a road with stones. The accused attacked the police with firearms, bakas, stones, and slingshots, damaging a government vehicle before fleeing.

Appellant No. 2, Makhanlal, was convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, on September 10, 2018, for offences under Sections 148 and 307/147 of the IPC and sentenced to five years and two years R.I. respectively.

While the appeal for Appellant No. 1 was dismissed as infructuous due to completion of sentence, Appellant No. 2 challenged his conviction but ultimately sought only a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 148 and 307/147 of the IPC was legally sustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether the jail sentence of the appellant could be modified to the period already undergone (approximately 4 years and 8 months) in the interest of justice.

The court applied Section 148 of the IPC (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon) and Section 307 (Attempt to murder) read with Section 147 (Punishment for rioting) of the IPC.

The court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to review the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the trial court to ensure the findings were not perverse.

The court applied the principle of proportionality in sentencing, balancing the nature of the crime against the duration of incarceration already served.

The Court independently reviewed the record and the statements of prosecution and defense witnesses, concluding that the Trial Court’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and required no interference on merits.

Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that the appellant did not challenge the conviction but prayed for leniency. The Court observed from the custody certificate that the appellant had already served 4 years, 7 months, and 29 days of his 5-year sentence.

Given that the appellant had nearly completed the entire term, the Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be adequately met by modifying the sentence to the period already served, as no fruitful purpose would be served by further incarceration.

The Court ordered the reduction of the jail sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine imposed by the Trial Court. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.