November 20, 2000 : A bench led by Acting Chief Justice R. S. Garg has partly allowed an appeal by three men convicted for an attempted murder in Raipur, upholding the convictions but reducing the prison terms to the time already spent behind bars. The three were originally convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge on December 9, 1996, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fines. In the recent order the court found the trial’s guilty verdicts sustainable while easing the sentences because each appellant had already served a substantial part of the jail term.
The underlying case arose after the complainant, Durgaprasad, said he was lured away from a shop by two of the accused and then attacked by a group with knives. He alleged he suffered 22 cut injuries. Two witnesses who the prosecution called as eye witnesses turned hostile at trial, and the court therefore relied largely on the victim’s testimony and the medical records. The medical evidence confirmed the multiple injuries but did not show internal damage to vital organs. The trial court had convicted all three for attempted murder, reasoning that the number and nature of wounds evidenced an intention to cause death.
On appeal the high court carefully reviewed the witness testimony and the medical reports. It accepted that the victim was not a false or unreliable witness and that the prosecution had proved the accused were involved in the assault. At the same time the court noted mitigating facts about time already served. One appellant, Sadashiv, had completed the seven year term; another, Vijay Kumar, had served more than six years; and Rajesh had served about four and a half years. For that reason the bench reduced the active sentences to match the period already undergone, while keeping the fines and the default imprisonment terms in place.
The order directs the trial court to prepare release warrants without delay so that any accused who qualify for immediate release can be freed after verification and settlement of fines. The court also ordered that once recovered, the fines should be paid to the complainant after due verification. A certified copy of the judgment was to be provided within three days.
This judgment highlights how appellate courts balance proof of guilt with equitable considerations around sentence execution. The convictions for an attack that left the victim with multiple cuts were sustained, while the high court used its discretion to avoid further custody where substantial time had already been served.
Case Reference : Criminal Appeal No. 2278 of 1996, Rajesh Patwa and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh : Counsel for the Appellants: Shri Prabhakar Singh Chandel, Advocate; Counsel for the State: Shri Ranveersingh, Government Advocate.
