Substantive sentences reduced to the period already undergone, considering prolonged incarceration and mitigating circumstances.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kantabanji, under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced to substantive terms of imprisonment, including seven years under Section 325; the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The trial court had acquitted him of the charges under Sections 294, 307, 326 and 506 IPC.

In appeal, counsel did not challenge the convictions and confined submissions to sentence.

The appellant had undergone 5 years, 3 months and 8 days in custody as of 12 August 2026, and his jail conduct was certified as good.

Counsel also relied on his age, absence of criminal antecedents and the time elapsed since the occurrence.

Whether, the convictions having not been challenged, the substantive sentences should be modified to the period already undergone in custody.

The appellant’s convictions were under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC, concerning wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing grievous hurt, respectively.

The appeal was brought under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court’s sentencing determination considered the period already undergone, the appellant’s age, lack of criminal antecedents and the passage of time.

Since the appellant expressly chose not to contest the convictions, the Court confined its consideration to the quantum of sentence.

It noted that he had already been incarcerated for more than five years, had no criminal antecedents, and had spent considerable time in custody since the occurrence; his age and good jail conduct were also before the Court.

On those circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate to reduce the substantive sentences to the period already undergone.

The appeal was partly allowed.