Sentences Modified to Period Undergone for Long-Term Reformation Despite Conviction Under Section 397 IPC.

On June 11, 2000, the informant was notified that his maternal brother (Md. Javed) and a neighbor (Imtiyaz) were assaulted near the Karo River.

The victims reported that two individuals armed with a knife and pistol intercepted their motorcycle, assaulted them, and robbed Rs. 25,000.

Md. Javed succumbed to his injuries, while Imtiyaz survived and later identified the appellants in a Test Identification Parade (TIP).

The Trial Court convicted both appellants under Section 397 IPC (10 years RI) and further convicted Appellant No. 1 (Balter Kandulna) under Section 304 Part-II IPC (10 years RI).

Appellant No. 2, having served his full sentence, did not contest the appeal on merits.

Appellant No. 1 sought a modification of his sentence to the period already undergone, citing over 22 years since the occurrence and nearly 6 years of actual custody.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 397 and 304 Part-II of the IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of the injured eye-witness and TIP results.

2. Whether the sentence of Appellant No. 1 should be modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone given the passage of 25 years since the incident and his subsequent conduct.

The court applied Section 397 of the IPC regarding robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.

The court applied Section 304 Part-II of the IPC regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder committed with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

The court also considered the evidentiary value of an injured witness’s testimony and the procedural validity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) under Section 9 of the Evidence Act.

Additionally, the court exercised its discretionary power in sentencing, considering the reformative theory of punishment and the lapse of time since the offense.

The court found the testimony of P.W.-6 (Imtiyaz Ansari), the injured survivor, to be credible and corroborated by the TIP conducted by the Judicial Magistrate.

P.W.-6 categorically identified both appellants and detailed the specific roles they played in the robbery and assault.

While the guilt of the appellants was established, the court shifted its focus to the quantum of sentence for Appellant No. 1.

It noted that 25 years had passed since the date of occurrence, during which Appellant No. 1 had not been involved in further criminal activities.

Given that he had already served 5 years, 10 months, and 17 days in actual custody (excluding remission), the court determined that the ends of justice would be met by reducing his sentence to the period already served.

The court held that Appellant No. 1 had been sufficiently punished and awarded him the sentence of imprisonment already undergone (5 years, 10 months, 17 days).

Appellant No. 1 was discharged from his bail bonds and liabilities, and the appeal was dismissed on merits with the noted modification in the sentence.