Conviction Upheld but Sentence Reduced to Time Already Served in Section 326 IPC Matter

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal by two accused challenging quantum of sentence imposed for offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. The Court had limited notice to the question of sentence and took up only the plea for reduction of imprisonment on grounds of time already undergone and an asserted compromise between the parties.

The Court upheld the convictions but reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants. It allowed impleadment of the de facto complainant and his wife as parties to the appeal in view of a settlement and condoned delay in filing because the appellants were in custody. The Court expressly recorded that leave was granted and the appeal was “allowed and disposed of” while directing immediate release of the appellants if they were not required in any other case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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."

Background

The appellants were convicted by the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, in Crime No.103/2016 for offences under Section 326 IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. The trial court sentenced each appellant to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000 under Section 326 IPC and to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000 under the TNPPDL Act, the sentences to run concurrently. The appellants appealed to the Madras High Court by Criminal Appeal No.481/2020, which by its judgment dated 07.02.2023 dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants to undergo the remaining sentence while granting set off for the period already undergone under Section 428 CrPC.

The appellants filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court (Criminal Appeal No.5156 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.19524 of 2025 and Diary No.52993/2024). This Court issued notice limited to the quantum of sentence on 17.01.2025. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had undergone two years and three months’ incarceration and asked for reduction of sentence to the period already served, noting a compromise between the private parties. The Additional Advocate General for the State opposed interference with conviction but did not resist suitable orders on sentence. Having regard to the notice limitation, the compromise, and the period already undergone, the Court upheld the convictions but reduced the sentence to the time already served and directed immediate release if the appellants were not required in other matters. The appeal was allowed and disposed of; the operative portion of the judgment was ordered to be released forthwith. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5156 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.19524 of 2025; Diary No.52993/2024) Case Title: Venkatesh & Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Learned counsel for the appellants (unnamed in judgment) For the Respondent(s): Learned Additional Advocate General for the State (unnamed in judgment)