Voluntariness and lack of criminal antecedents warrant reduction of sentence for conviction under Section 326 IPC.

The appellant was charged under FIR Crime No. 127/24 at Police Station Station Road, Pipariya, for causing grievous hurt.

Following a trial in Sessions Trial No. 34/2024, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, convicted the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On November 26, 2024, the trial court sentenced the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

The appellant challenged this judgment before the High Court, though his counsel abandoned the challenge against the conviction and confined the prayer solely to the reduction of the quantum of sentence.

1. Whether the substantive sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 326 of the IPC was proportionate given the mitigating circumstances of the appellant.

The Court applied Section 326 of the IPC, which pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Procedurally, the appeal was considered under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.

The Court relied on the sentencing principle of proportionality and the reformative theory of punishment, emphasizing that sentences must be balanced against the nature of the offender and the circumstances of the crime.

The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was sound.

In addressing the quantum of sentence, the Court evaluated several mitigating factors: the appellant’s young age, the absence of criminal antecedents, his status as a non-habitual offender, and the fact that he had already served approximately 2 years and 3 months (approaching three years) of his sentence.

The Court reasoned that while the offense was serious, the ends of justice would be better served by a modified sentence that reflects both the gravity of the act and the potential for reformation. Consequently, the Court determined that reducing the custodial period while significantly increasing the fine amount would meet the requirement of a proportionate sentence.

The substantive sentence of seven years' RI was reduced to four years' RI, and the fine was enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 10,000, to be deposited within two months.

The Court ordered that the appellant be released upon completion of the modified four-year term, subject to the payment of the enhanced fine and if not required in any other case.