Sentence under Section 307 IPC reduced to the period already undergone, with enhanced fine as compensation.

On 28 January 2018, during a matrimonial dispute involving the appellant’s sister, the injured Chhangu Ram went to Anand Ram’s house to mediate.

The appellant allegedly assaulted Chhangu Ram on the head with an iron rod. When Chhangu’s son, Virendra Lahre, intervened, the appellant also assaulted him.

Chhangu suffered a lacerated forehead wound, fracture of the frontal bone, and hemorrhagic contusion, classified as grievous; Virendra suffered simple injuries.

The iron rod was seized pursuant to the appellant’s memorandum, and the medical and forensic evidence supported the prosecution case.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000 under Section 307, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, with the sentences to run concurrently.

In appeal, the appellant did not challenge the conviction but sought reduction of sentence on the grounds of his young age, the sudden nature of the incident, the single blow inflicted, the passage of time, and the period already undergone.

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 323 IPC was sustainable on the testimony of the injured witnesses and the supporting medical and documentary evidence?

Whether, having regard to the appellant’s age, the circumstances of the assault, the nature of the injuries, and the period already undergone, the sentence under Section 307 IPC should be reduced?

The Court applied Section 307 IPC, which penalises an act done with the intention or knowledge necessary to constitute murder if death had resulted, and Section 323 IPC concerning voluntarily causing simple hurt.

It held that assault with an iron rod on the vital part of the body, resulting in a fracture of the frontal bone, could constitute an attempt to commit murder.

On sentencing, the Court relied on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287, which emphasises rehabilitation and a therapeutic approach in sentencing.

Raj Bala v. State of Haryana, 2016 (1) SCC 463, incorporating the principles that punishment must be proportionate, while considering culpability, age, antecedents, possibility of reformation, lapse of time, relationship between the parties, weapon used, and the circumstances of the offence.

The Court also recognised that undue sympathy cannot result in an inadequate sentence and that sentencing must balance societal protection with proportionality.

The Court found the evidence of injured witnesses Virendra and Chhangu reliable and materially consistent.

Their presence and the appellant’s involvement were supported by the testimony of other witnesses, medical evidence showing a grievous head injury and a simple injury to Virendra, the CT-scan report, and the doctor’s opinion that the seized iron rod could have caused Chhangu’s injury.

The fact that Anand Ram turned hostile did not undermine the prosecution case because the injured witnesses’ testimony remained unrebutted on material particulars.

The Court therefore affirmed the convictions under Sections 307 and 323 IPC.

For sentencing, however, the Court considered the appellant’s age of approximately 21 years at the time of the incident, the relationship between the parties, the circumstances suggesting a sudden altercation, the manner of assault, the nature of the injuries, and the period already undergone.

Applying the principles of proportionality, rehabilitation, and reformative sentencing, it concluded that the seven-year sentence under Section 307 IPC was excessive in the circumstances, though the conviction itself was justified.

The convictions under Sections 307 and 323 IPC were maintained.

The sentence under Section 323 IPC was also maintained as already undergone.

The sentence under Section 307 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone, subject to payment of an enhanced fine of ₹25,000 within two months before the trial court.

In default, the appellant was directed to undergo a further three months’ rigorous imprisonment.

Any fine already deposited was to be adjusted, and the deposited fine was directed to be paid to injured Chhangu Ram Lahre as compensation under Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The appellant’s bail bond was directed to continue for six months under Section 481 BNSS, 2023.