The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty. Appellate courts may exercise judicial discretion to modify sentences in light of significant, unexplained delays in the adjudication of criminal proceedings, balancing society's interest in justice against the mental agony caused by protracted litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 23.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Amta, Howrah in connection with Sessions Trial No. 269/09 arising out of Joypur P.S. Case No. 54/08 dated 28.07.08 corresponding to G.R. Case No.768/08 at the instance of the appellant.

2. By passing the impugned judgment the present appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year along with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction the present appellant has preferred this instant appeal.

4. Shorn of extraneous details, the facts leading to the present appeal may be summarized as follows:

“The instant case originated on the basis of a written complaint lodged by Smt. Ratan Pramanick before the Joypur Police Station. In the said complaint, it was interalia stated that on 28.07.2008, at approximately 9:30 A.M., one Sisir Mistry was engaged in repairing the tile shed of the complainant’s house. At that time, Palash Dolui, the appellant and next-door neighbor of the complainant, objected to the said repair work. According to the complaint, the victim, who is the daughter-in-law of the de-facto complainant, informed the appellant that the work was being carried out within the boundaries of their own land. On hearing this, the appellant allegedly returned to his house, retrieved a “sabal” (iron rod), and struck the victim on her head with the said weapon, causing a bleeding injury. Subsequently, the injured victim, Sandhya Pramanick, was initially taken to Joypur Hospital for treatment and thereafter referred to the Calcutta Medical College and Hospital for further medical care. On the basis of the said complaint, a formal case was registered at Joypur Police Station, being Case No. 54/2008, dated 28.07.2008. Following the completion of the investigation, the prosecuting agency submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant, Palash Dolui, under Sections 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code”.

5. Charge was framed by the Trial Court against the accused under Section 325/307 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to the accused, in which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses and documents were marked as exhibit on its behalf. Prosecution also proved the seized alamat which are marked as material exhibits. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

6. Mr. Apan Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, has contended that the ingredients of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code have not been established against the appellant, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction cannot be sustained. It is submitted by Mr. Saha that the evidence on record, when scrutinized in its entirety, fails to demonstrate that the appellant inf