Substantive Sentence Reduced to Period Undergone for Amputation Caused by Biting in Heat of Passion.

On May 16, 2011, during a wedding celebration, the complainant (Gokul) requested that the band be stopped so guests could eat.

The appellant, Khemraj, allegedly bit the first finger of the complainant’s left hand, resulting in complete amputation.

Initially registered under Section 324 of the IPC, the charge was later upgraded to Section 326 following medical examination.

The trial court (First Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai) convicted the appellant on August 22, 2012, sentencing him to three years RI and a fine.

The appellant appealed, not challenging the conviction but seeking a reduction in sentence due to the 15-year pendency of the case and his lack of criminal history.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing grievous hurt is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether the substantive jail sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone (two days) given the lapse of time, age of the accused at the time of the incident, and the nature of the dispute.

The court primarily applied Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means—in this instance, the use of teeth resulting in amputation.

The court also invoked the principles of sentencing discretion, balancing the nature of the offence (committed in the "heat of passion") against the mitigating factors of prolonged trial (15 years) and the clean record of the accused.

Provision was also made for victim compensation under Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The court affirmed the trial court’s conviction, finding that the evidence from seven witnesses, including the victim and medical professionals, sufficiently established the act of amputation.

However, regarding the quantum of sentence, the court noted several mitigating factors: the appellant was 26 years old at the time of the 2011 incident, he had no prior criminal record, and the incident occurred spontaneously during a wedding dispute.

The court observed that the appellant had faced a 15-year legal ordeal and had already served two days in custody.

Relying on the principle that the ends of justice are met by balancing punishment with the circumstances of the offender, the court determined that enhancing the fine while reducing the jail term to the period already served was appropriate.

The holding reduced the substantive jail sentence to the period already undergone (two days) and enhanced the fine from Rs. 500 to Rs. 20,000.

The court directed that the enhanced fine be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023.

Failure to deposit the fine within two months will result in the reinstatement of the original trial court sentence.

The appeal was disposed of with the discharge of bail bonds.