Sentence reduced to period undergone for young first-time offender while enhancing fine as victim compensation.

On June 21, 2018, the complainant and her father hired an autorickshaw in Bhopal.

During the journey, the appellant, who was already seated in the vehicle, attempted to snatch the complainant’s mangalsutra.

The complainant’s father intervened and apprehended the appellant at the spot, while the driver fled.

Following an investigation and trial, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, convicted the appellant under Section 392 read with Section 511 of the IPC, sentencing him to three years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹3,000.

The appellant challenged this conviction and sentence before the High Court, primarily seeking a reduction in sentence based on his age (18 at the time of the incident), lack of criminal antecedents, and the seven-year duration of the proceedings.

1. Whether the trial court’s conviction of the appellant under Section 392/511 of the IPC was based on proper appreciation of evidence.

2. Whether the substantive sentence of three years RI should be modified considering the mitigating circumstances of the appellant.

The court primarily applied Section 392 of the IPC (punishment for robbery) read with Section 511 of the IPC (punishment for attempting to commit offences).

It exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Furthermore, the court invoked Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the payment of compensation to the victim from the fine amount.

The High Court, upon reviewing the record and the testimony of six prosecution witnesses, concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the conviction under Section 392/511 IPC required no interference.

Regarding the sentence, the court noted that the appellant was 18 years old at the time of the offense in 2018 and had no prior criminal record.

The court observed that the appellant had undergone the ordeal of trial for approximately seven years and had remained in custody for only five days during the trial.

Balancing the nature of the offense with these mitigating factors—specifically his cooperative conduct and status as a first-time offender—the court reasoned that the interests of justice would be served by reducing the jail term to the period already undergone while significantly increasing the fine to compensate the victim.

The substantive imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone (approximately five days), and the fine was enhanced from ₹3,000 to ₹10,000.

The Court directed that the enhanced fine be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023.

The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the appellant to deposit the balance fine within two months, failing which the original sentence would be restored.