SENTENCE REDUCED TO PERIOD UNDERGONE FOR SINGLE-BLOW ASSAULT WITHOUT PREMEDITATION UNDER SECTION 304 PART-II IPC.

On July 27, 2001, the appellant intercepted the informant’s husband and assaulted him with a *sakhuwa* wooden stick on the neck.

The victim rendered unconscious and died two days later during treatment at Sadar Hospital, Gumla.

Initially registered under Section 302 IPC, the trial court (Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2001) convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment on November 29, 2003.

The appellant challenged this judgment, specifically focusing on the quantum of sentence, noting he had already served over 4 years in custody and that the incident occurred over 25 years ago.

Whether the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for an offense under Section 304 Part-II IPC is liable to be modified given the nature of the weapon, the lack of premeditation, and the time elapsed since the occurrence?

The court applied Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which provides for punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death.

The court also considered the judicial principle of proportionality in sentencing, weighing the gravity of the offense against the circumstances of the offender, the passage of time (over two decades), and the restoration of mutual peace between the parties.

The High Court observed that the assault consisted of a single blow with a *sakhuwa* stick, which was not inherently sufficient to cause death in ordinary circumstances but proved fatal likely due to inadequate treatment in a rural area.

The court found no evidence of a "gruesome murder," premeditation, or long-standing enmity; rather, the incident appeared spontaneous.

Critically, the court noted that 25 years had passed since the occurrence, during which time both parties had established mutual peace.

Given the appellant had already undergone 4 years and 1 month of actual imprisonment, the court reasoned that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, rather than maintaining the maximum 10-year term.

It maintained the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC but modified the sentence from 10 years to the period of imprisonment already served (4 years and 1 month).

The appellant was discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.