Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1999

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
Venkatesh & Another – Appellants
Versus
State Represented By the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.5156 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 19524 of 2025 arising out of Diary No.52993 of 2024)
Decided On : 02-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR, Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. Hari Krishnan P V, Adv., Mr. Dhass Prathap Singh V M, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv., Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv., Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv., Ms. Arpitha Anna Mathew, Adv. Ms. Arjoo Rawat, Adv., Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Adv. Mr. K.S.Badhrinathan, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Grievous hurt – Sentence can be reduced in the event of compromise and settlement of disputes between parties.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 326 – Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 – Section 3 (1) – Grievous hurt – Conviction and sentence – Compromise and settlement of disputes between parties – Appellants are in jail and have completed two years and three months of incarceration under Section 326 of IPC – Out of five years of sentence imposed on appellants, they have already completed two years and three months – This Court had issued notice to respondents only on question of sentence – While upholding conviction of appellants, sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 9 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for the offences under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. Appellants were sentenced under Section 326 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment whereof, six more months’ rigorous imprisonment each; and were sentenced under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment whereof, six more months’ rigorous imprisonment each. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Findings of Court:
Appellants shall be released forthwith from the jail in which they are incarcerated, if they are otherwise not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. final judgment and release conditions (Para 1 , 12 , 13)
2. details of conviction and sentencing (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments regarding sentence reduction (Para 9 , 10)
4. court's consideration of sentence duration (Para 11)

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

The prayer/application for impleadment of de facto complainant and his wife as respondents to this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise between the private parties. Cause title be amended accordingly.

2. Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.

3. Leave granted.

4. By judgment and order dated 03.11.2020 passed in S.C. No.460/2016 by the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem the appellants herein were convicted in Crime No.103/2016 for the offences under Section 326 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (for short “TNPPDL Act”). The appellants were sentenced under Section 326 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment whereof, six more months’ rigorous imprisonment each; and were sentenced under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment whereof, six more months’ rigorous imprisonment each. The sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, they preferred Criminal Appeal No.481/2020 before the Madras High Court.

6. By the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants and directed them to undergo the remaining sentence while observing that the period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall stand set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. Being unsuccessful in their appeal(s), the appellants are before this Court.

8. Vide order dated 17.01.2025, this Court issued notice to the respondents limited only to the quantum of sentence.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that appellants are in jail and have completed two years and three months of incarceration under Section 326 of the IPC. He therefore, submitted that the sentence imposed on the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone instead of what has been imposed by the Sessions Courts, which has been affirmed by the High Court. He submitted that there is also a compromise and settlement of disputes between the parties and in the circumstances this Court may reduce the sentence to the period already undergone as they have undergone nearly half of the sentence imposed on them.

10. Per contra, learned A.A.G appearing for the respondent/State submitted that there is no merit in this appeal. However, appropriate orders may be made in the appeal.

11. We take note of the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that out of five years of sentence imposed on the appellants, they have already completed two years and three months. This Court had issued notice to the respondents only on the question of sentence. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the appellants herein, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The appellants shall be released forthwith from the jail in which they are incarcerated, if they are otherwise not required in any other case.

12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

13. The operative portion of this judgment shall be released forthwith.

OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT :

The prayer/application for impleadment of de- facto complainant and his wife as respondents to this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise between the private parties. Cause title be amended accordingly.

Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of. Reasoned judgment shall follow.

While upholding the conviction of the appellants herein, we reduce the sentence to the period already

Click Here to Read the rest of this document