Substantive sentence reduced to period undergone upon enhancement of fine, while conviction remains upheld.

The appellants were prosecuted for an incident dated 22.03.2008 in which they allegedly assaulted Girdhari Sahu in his house with a ballam and lathis, and caused simple injuries to Shivprasad and Ramprasad.

Ram Singh was specifically alleged to have caused a punctured neck injury to Girdhari Sahu with a ballam.

The Sessions Court, Sidhi, in ST No. 138/2008, convicted the appellants under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500 each for the Section 307/34 offence, and six months’ simple imprisonment for the Section 323/34 offence.

In appeal, the appellants did not challenge their convictions on merits and confined their submissions to reduction of sentence.

They relied on the age of the incident, the period already undergone, their status as poor labourers, and the prolonged pendency of the proceedings.

Whether the convictions of the appellants under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of the IPC were legally sustainable on the evidence available on record?

Whether, having regard to the period already undergone, the lapse of approximately eighteen years since the incident, and the circumstances of the appellants, the substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine?

The Court applied Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., read with Section 415 of the B.N.S.S., governing the appellate challenge to a conviction and sentence.

Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC concern attempt to murder committed with common intention, while Section 323 of the IPC penalises voluntarily causing simple hurt; Section 34 attributes criminal liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

The appellate court may uphold the conviction while modifying the sentence where the circumstances of the case, the period already undergone, and the passage of time justify such relief.

Although the appellants expressly restricted the appeal to the question of sentence, the Court independently examined the record, including the oral and documentary evidence, to satisfy itself that the convictions were legally sustainable.

It found that the Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence and therefore upheld the convictions under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 IPC.

On sentencing, the Court considered that the incident had occurred in 2008; appellant No.4 had undergone approximately three years, two months and twenty-seven days’ imprisonment, while appellants Nos.1 to 3 had undergone approximately six months and twelve days.

Taking into account the long pendency of the proceedings, the period already served, and the circumstances urged by the appellants, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the custodial sentence to the period already undergone and enhancing the fine.

The convictions under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 IPC were maintained, but the substantive imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone by each appellant.

The fine of Rs.500 imposed by the Trial Court was enhanced to Rs.5,000 per appellant, to be deposited before the Trial Court within two months; any amount already deposited was directed to be adjusted.

In default of payment, the appellants were directed to undergo the remaining portion of the original custodial sentence.

As the appellants were on bail, their bail bonds were discharged.