Substantive Fine Substituted for Imprisonment in Non-Heinous Offences Due to Decade-Long Trial Pendency

On December 11, 2012, the complainant, Omprakash Raidas, was assaulted and filthily abused by Lalit Prajapati (Appellant No. 1) and Ruplal (Appellant No. 2) near the house of Appellant No. 1

Following a trial in Sessions Trial No. 02/2014, the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Anuppur, convicted the appellants on July 11, 2014, under Sections 342 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

They were sentenced to six months' Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine of Rs. 200/- each

The appellants preferred this appeal in 2014, choosing not to challenge the conviction on merits but seeking a modification of the sentence due to their young age (19 and 23 at the time), the non-heinous nature of the offense, and the ten-year pendency of the appeal

1. Whether the sentence of six months' imprisonment should be modified to a fine in light of the prolonged pendency of proceedings and the nature of the offense

Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the right of appeal against conviction

Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and Section 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement) of the IPC, 1860, both of which carry a maximum sentence of one year

Principles of criminal justice focusing on reformation, rehabilitation, and deterrence, particularly concerning young offenders and the delay in the judicial process

The Court noted that the appellants did not contest the findings of the trial court on merits, thereby confirming the conviction

In assessing the sentence, the Court observed that the incident was a neighborhood altercation without "heinous or aggravated criminality"

The Court emphasized that the appellants had been facing trial and appeal for over a decade, which caused "substantial mental agony and hardship"

Furthermore, since the appellants were young at the time of the incident and had remained on bail without undergoing actual custody, the Court reasoned that directing incarceration after twelve years would not serve the ends of justice

It determined that the original fine of Rs. 200/- was "wholly inadequate" and that an enhanced fine would better serve the purposes of the justice system

The Court modified the sentence by enhancing the fine from Rs. 200/- to a total of Rs. 4,000/- per appellant (calculated as Rs. 1,000/- per section per appellant). The fine must be deposited within one month, failing which a default stipulation of one month's Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) will apply

The appeal was disposed of accordingly