IMPORTANT POINT
The court balanced the reliability of prosecution evidence with the appellant's age, health condition, and time spent in custody to modify the sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Rajmahal, in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 2002, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 05.01.1999 in the evening the mother of the informant after taking meal went to sleep in his Khalihan to look after the crop kept there. In the meantime the mother of the informant came to the house of informant and started quarrelling with the wife of informant. Hearing hulla the informant came to his house and asked his wife to stop quarrelling. At that time accused entered in his house armed with Jharni and gave a blow on his head which caused bleeding injury.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that not a single independent witness has supported the case of prosecution and as such the evidence of the informant is un-corroborated and cannot be a reliable one. He further submits that the doctor has also not been examined in this case and the story of the injury has not been proved. He lastly submits that the appellant is suffering from paralysis since last two years.

5. Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 1999 and the appellant has suffered the mental agony due to ongoing litigation and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may kindly, at least, modify the sentence for the period already undergone as appellant is now aged about 57 years and he has remained in custody for about 5 months and 21 days and never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellant is suffering from paralysis since last 2 years, so some leniency may be granted by this court.

6. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant. However, she fairly submits that as per record, there is no any criminal antecedent of the appellant; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be modified in lieu of fine.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment and the documents available on LCR, and looking to the comprehensive facts and circumstances of the case and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses who have considerably proved the case of the prosecution and the findings of the learned trial court; this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained.

8. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to sentence awarded to him; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the appellant to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of his life would not serve the ends of justice as the appellant is suffering from paralysis since last 2 years and also remained in custody for about 5 months and 21 days.

9. Thus, on point of sentence, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the alleged incident took place in the year 1999 and about 24 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellant was in jail for a considerable period and he has never misused the privilege of bail and now he is not involved in any criminal activities; thus, he has a chance to reform.

10. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of considered view that without interfering with the judgment of conviction, the sentence ought to be modified to the extent that the appellant shall be released for the period already undergone.

11. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenc