Summary
The Supreme Court declined to enhance the disposition against four respondents convicted of grievous hurt with common intention. The High Court properly found Section 325, rather than attempted murder under Section 307, established. Its sentence of imprisonment already undergone, together with Rs. 50,000 payable compensation, was adequate on the particular facts, including the thirty-year lapse and death of one injured person. The complainant’s appeal was dismissed; the State had not appealed.
Issues
- Whether the offence classification and sentence of time served with monetary compensation required interference on the complainant’s appeal.
Held
- The High Court’s conclusion that the proved offence was grievous hurt under Sections 325/34, rather than attempted murder, rested on proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence and warranted no interference. (¶¶ 6, 7, 10, 11)
- The respondents had undergone a reasonable period in custody as undertrials. Considering that period, the Rs. 50,000 monetary award, the three decades since the 1988 incident and one injured person’s intervening death, the Court found the disposition sufficient. This was a case-specific sentencing assessment. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The High Court had convicted four respondents, required Rs. 12,500 from each and preserved the fifth respondent’s acquittal on benefit of doubt. The complainant’s challenge did not warrant alteration; the State had brought no appeal. (¶¶ 6, 7, 16)
Result
Complainant’s appeal dismissed; High Court’s grievous-hurt convictions, time-served sentence and Rs. 50,000 monetary award left undisturbed.