Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
BHAVESHBHAI KHODABHAI SAVALIYA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1966 of 2022 (@ SLP (CRL.)NO. 2349 of 2022)
Decided on : 11-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 325 – Hurt – Quantum of sentence – Appellant was sentenced to two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months more, in case of default – Appellant has remained in incarceration for almost a period of one year – Considering fact that incident occurred 20 years back and offence is only under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code, while confirming conviction, in facts and circumstances, it is fit to reduce sentence to period already undergone – Appellant directed to be released forthwith. (Paras 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Appellant herein was convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months more, in case of default. Order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court was affirmed by Sessions Court as well as High Court.
Findings of Court:
Order of sentence passed by courts below stands modified.
Result : Appeal disposed of with observations and directions.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Vide Order dated 22.03.2022, limited notice was issued on the quantum of sentence.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The appellant herein was convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months more, in case of default.
5. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was affirmed by the sessions Court as well as the High Court.
6. On the basis of instruction, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the fine has already been deposited.
7. It is undisputed fact that the appellant has remained in incarceration for almost a period of one year.
8. Considering the fact that the incident occurred 20 years back and the offence is only under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, while confirming the conviction, in the facts and circumstances, we find it fit to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith.
9. The order of sentence passed by the courts below stands modified to the extent above.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Long lapse of time and non-serious nature of offence can be grounds for reduction of sentence to period already undergone.
The court has the discretion to reduce the sentence based on the period already served by the appellant.
The court modified the sentence considering the age of the appellants and recommendations from probation authorities.
Grievous hurt – Sentence can be reduced to period already undergone keeping in view mitigating circumstances of case.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC while modifying the sentence to the time already served due to mitigating circumstances.
The court found that considerations of time served and rehabilitation justified the modification of the sentence in favor of the appellants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
