Substantive Conviction Upheld in Cross-Cases; Sentence Reduced to Period Undergone Due to Amicable Settlement Between Parties.

The case involves a cross-FIR conflict arising from a scuffle on August 6, 2013, at Kotarliya Railway Station during the Hareli festival.

In the first incident, Mahendra Singh (Group A) alleged he was assaulted with an axe by Rajkumar Sahu and others (Group B) while grazing cattle.

In the counter-version, Group B alleged that Ashutosh Chandrawanshi (Group A) and others attacked them with swords and sticks, resulting in Rajkumar Sahu’s thumb being severed.

The Trial Court convicted Group A under Sections 326/34, 324/34, and 323/34 IPC and Group B under Sections 147, 148, 294, and 324/149 IPC.

Both parties appealed their convictions, and the complainant from Group B filed an acquittal appeal seeking enhancement of Group A’s sentence.

During the pendency of the appeals, the parties entered into a compromise.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges against both sets of appellants beyond a reasonable doubt despite the cross-versions of the incident.

2. Whether the jail sentences should be modified or reduced in light of the compromise entered into by the parties 13 years after the incident.

Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), Section 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and Section 149 (common object).

Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 320 CrPC) regarding the compounding of offences.

The principle of sentencing proportionality where the focus shifts to the period already undergone if a long-standing dispute is settled amicably.

The Court observed that the ocular evidence of injured witnesses (Mahendra Singh for Group A and Rajkumar Sahu for Group B) corroborated by medical reports from Dr. J. Ekka and Dr. R.K. Agrawal established that a violent scuffle occurred where both sides were aggressors.

Specifically, the severing of Rajkumar’s thumb by Ashutosh was proven as a grievous injury under Section 326 IPC.

The Court took significant note of the 13-year lapse since the 2013 incident and the fact that the parties, being from the same locality, had compromised to live peacefully.

While the Court upheld the convictions based on the evidence, it reasoned that further incarceration would not serve the interests of justice given the restoration of communal harmony.

In both CRA No. 742/2016 and CRA No. 715/2016, the jail sentences were reduced to the period already undergone.

For appellant Ashutosh Chandrawanshi (who caused the most severe injury), the fine under Section 326 IPC was enhanced from ₹2,000 to ₹10,000.

The acquittal appeal (ACQA No. 137/2016) was dismissed; the appellants were directed to remain on bail for six months under Section 437-A CrPC/Section 481 BNSS.