Substantive Jail Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone Given Lack of Antecedents and Long Pendency.

On 29.06.2013, the complainant (Sevak Ram) was weeding his field when Appellant No. 1 (Harikishor) arrived, abused him, and struck him on the head with an axe

Appellant No. 2 (Ranjeet) and others subsequently arrived and assaulted the complainant and his son with sticks and fists

Medical examination revealed a grievous head injury

The Trial Court (Upper Sessions Judge, Sausar) convicted Appellant No. 1 under Sections 325 and 323 IPC, and Appellant No. 2 under Sections 325/34 and 323 IPC, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellants challenged the sentence before the High Court, having already undergone five days of incarceration during the trial

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 325, 325/34, and 323 of the IPC is sustainable based on the evidence

2. Whether the substantive jail sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone (5 days) given the appellants' age, lack of criminal antecedents, and the 13-year duration of the proceedings

The Court applied Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the right to appeal a conviction

Substantive offences were governed by Section 325 of the IPC (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), Section 323 of the IPC (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 34 of the IPC (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)

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

The High Court noted that the appellants did not challenge the merits of their conviction, and upon review, found that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the injuries caused to the victims

In considering the quantum of the sentence, the Court weighed mitigating factors: the incident occurred in 2013 (over 13 years ago), the appellants were first-time offenders with no criminal antecedents, they had cooperated throughout the trial and appeal, and they had already served 5 days in custody

The Court determined that while the conviction must be upheld, the interest of justice would be served by reducing the jail term to the period already served, provided the fine amount was significantly increased to compensate the victims

The substantive imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone (05 days), and the fine was enhanced from ₹2,000 to ₹15,000 each for the Section 325/325/34 convictions, plus ₹1,000 each for the Section 323 conviction

The Court directed that the total fine amount be paid to the victims as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The appeal was disposed of accordingly