Sentencing reduced to period undergone while enhancing fine as compensation for first-time offenders in SC/ST Act cases.

The appellants, Arjun Singh and Mohan Singh, were accused of assaulting the complainant, Parasram (PW-1), and his brother Devkaran (PW-4) on October 1, 2017, following a dispute over harvesting soybeans.

The assault resulted in a fracture of the radius bone in Parasram’s left arm.

The Trial Court (Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sehore) convicted the appellants on September 12, 2019, under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, sentencing them to 18 months and 3 months R.I. respectively.

While Arjun Singh appealed in 2019, Mohan Singh filed his appeal in 2025 with a 2155-day delay, which the High Court condoned.

In the final hearing, the appellants did not challenge the conviction on merits but sought a reduction in sentence.

1. Whether the delay of 2155 days in filing the appeal by Mohan Singh (Cr.A. No. 10769/2025) should be condoned.

2. Whether the findings of conviction under Sections 325/34, 323/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are sustainable.

3. Whether the custodial sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone (approx. 4 months for Mohan Singh and 16 days for Arjun Singh) given the facts and circumstances.

The court applied Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the right to appeal.

It relied on Section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC, read with Section 34 (common intention).

Crucially, the court noted that Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which mandates punishment for offences committed against protected persons, does not prescribe a minimum sentence for the specific sections involved in this case.

The court also applied Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the payment of compensation to victims from the fine amount.

The High Court upheld the conviction after finding that the Trial Court had properly appreciated the medical evidence (testimony of PW-7 and pre-MLC reports) and eyewitness accounts (PW-1 to PW-4).

In analyzing the sentence, the Court exercised its discretion by considering several mitigating factors: the incident occurred in 2017; the appellants were young at the time (ages 21 and 32); they were first-time offenders with no criminal record; they had cooperated during the trial; and they had already faced the "agony of trial" for approximately nine years.

Since the statute does not mandate a minimum term for these specific offences under the SC/ST Act, the Court determined that the ends of justice would be served by substitution of the remaining jail time with an enhanced financial penalty.

However, the court modified the sentence: the jail terms were reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.

To balance this reduction, the fine for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act was increased from ₹2,000 to ₹10,000, while the ₹1,000 fine for Section 323/34 IPC was maintained.

The court ordered that the total fine amount be paid to the victims as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C., with a default clause of surrendering to serve the original sentence if the fine is not deposited within 60 days.