Sentence reduced to period undergone for first-time offender showing cooperative conduct and no criminal antecedents.

On October 12, 2016, at approximately 03:00 AM, the appellant was cutting a Neem tree near the residence of the injured parties.

When Vinayak Saket (PW-1) intervened, the appellant struck him on the head with an axe

The appellant also assaulted Smt. Sunita Saket (PW-3) and Smt. Sugwa Saket (PW-2) using his fists and the handle of the axe

An FIR was registered at Churhat Police Station later that morning

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to four years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and three months RI, respectively

In the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., the appellant did not contest the conviction but sought a reduction in sentence based on the length of the proceedings (since 2016), his status as a first-time offender, and the time already served in custody

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 326 and 323 of the IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record?

2. Whether the sentence awarded by the Trial Court should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant?

The Court primarily applied Section 326 of the IPC regarding voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means and Section 323 of the IPC regarding the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

It further utilized Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to direct the payment of the fine amount to the victims as compensation

The Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated and marshalled the evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-9)

In addressing the prayer for a reduced sentence, the Court evaluated several mitigating factors: the appellant was approximately 40 years old at the time of the incident, had no prior criminal record as per the Trial Court's findings, and had remained cooperative throughout the decade-long pendency of the proceedings

The Court observed that the appellant had already served a period of approximately 4 months and 7 days in custody

Balancing the nature of the offense with the absence of criminal antecedents and the prolonged ordeal of trial, the Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be met by substituting the remaining jail sentence with an enhanced fine, thereby providing direct compensation to the injured parties

Under Section 326 of the IPC, the fine was enhanced from ₹5,000 to ₹10,000, while the fine for Section 323 was maintained. The Court ordered that the entire fine amount be paid to the injured parties as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.

The appellant's bail bonds were discharged, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly