Substantive jail sentence for Section 323 IPC set aside considering offender's youth, lack of antecedents, and prolonged trial pendency.

The appellant was charged following an FIR dated 27.02.2011 involving Sections 294, 323, and 506 of the IPC along with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

The Trial Court (Special Sessions Judge, Dindori) convicted the appellant solely under Section 323 of the IPC, sentencing him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000.

The appellant challenged this conviction but, during the appellate proceedings, limited his plea to the quantum of the sentence, citing that the incident occurred in 2011 without premeditation and that he has no prior criminal record.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether the substantive sentence of imprisonment should be modified or set aside given the lapse of time, the age of the offender, and the nature of the offence.

The court applied Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

It also considered the principles underlying Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (reproduced in the judgment text), which restricts the imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age unless the court records specific reasons why they should not be dealt with under sections 3 or 4 of said Act.

Furthermore, the court exercised its appellate discretion under Section 374(2) of the CrPC to modify the sentence.

The Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the Trial Court had properly appreciated and marshalled the evidence.

The Court observed that the appellant was only 20 years old at the time of the incident in 2011.

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the litigation has been pending for approximately 16 years, the appellant has no criminal antecedents, and the offence was committed in the "heat of passion" without premeditation.

Applying the principle that imprisonment is not mandatory for such offences, the Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be met by substituting the jail term with the fine already imposed, especially considering the appellant's cooperative conduct during the trial.

However, it modified the order of sentence by setting aside the substantive jail imprisonment of six months.

The fine of ₹1,000 was maintained without further enhancement.

The appellant was discharged from his bail bonds, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.