Sentence under Section 323 IPC reduced to period already undergone after prolonged trial and four months’ custody.

The prosecution alleged that, on 14 July 2011, the petitioners and other accused persons were ploughing the informant’s disputed agricultural land.

When the informant objected, he was allegedly assaulted. The incident also involved injuries to Kartik Mandal and Rajesh Mandal, and allegations of assault with a knife and dabia, criminal intimidation, rioting, and theft.

Masalia P.S. Case No. 69 of 2011 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 379, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

After investigation, charges were framed, and the prosecution examined its witnesses and produced documentary evidence.

The trial court convicted the petitioners under Section 323 IPC and sentenced each of them to six months’ simple imprisonment.

Their appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Dumka, on 23 August 2017.

In revision, the petitioners did not challenge the conviction on merits and sought reduction of sentence on the ground that they had already undergone approximately four months’ imprisonment, had faced the proceedings for more than a decade, and had no other criminal antecedents.

Whether the concurrent findings of guilt against the petitioners under Section 323 IPC required interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Whether, considering the age of the occurrence, the petitioners’ period of custody, the prolonged trial, and their lack of other criminal involvement, the sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone.

The court applied Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises voluntarily causing hurt, and upheld the concurrent factual findings supporting the petitioners’ conviction under that provision.

In determining sentence, the court considered the circumstances of the case, including the substantial lapse of time since the occurrence, the period of imprisonment already undergone, the prolonged agony of trial, and the absence of other criminal activity.

The High Court found no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court regarding the petitioners’ guilt under Section 323 IPC; accordingly, the conviction was maintained.

However, while considering the quantum of punishment, the court noted that the occurrence was from 2011, the petitioners had faced the proceedings for more than a decade, and they had already undergone approximately four months of imprisonment out of the six-month sentence.

Their lack of involvement in any other criminal activity also weighed in favour of leniency.

On these facts, the court considered the period already undergone sufficient punishment and modified the sentence accordingly.

However, the sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone.

As the petitioners were on bail, they were discharged from their bail bonds, and the sureties were also discharged.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of, and the lower-court records were directed to be returned.