Two men convicted in a 2016 assault and property damage case from Salem gained relief after the Supreme Court reduced their remaining jail term following a compromise. The Court kept their conviction intact but ruled the sentence be treated as time already served.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court reduced the remaining jail term of two men convicted for assault and property damage in a 2016 case from Salem, Tamil Nadu.
The top court kept their conviction unchanged but ordered that their sentence should be treated as the period they have already spent in jail.
A Bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard the matter.
At the beginning, the Court recorded the compromise between the private parties and said,
“The prayer/application for impleadment of de facto complainant and his wife as respondents to this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise between the private parties. Cause title be amended accordingly.”
The Court also condoned the delay in filing the appeal because the men were in custody. It granted leave to hear the matter.
The case relates to Crime No.103/2016, in which the Sessions Court had convicted the appellants under Section 326 of the IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act.
They were sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 IPC and two years under the TNPPDL Act, with both sentences running together. The Madras High Court later dismissed their appeal.
The Supreme Court had earlier issued notice only on the question of sentence. During the hearing, the appellants’ lawyer argued that they had already spent two years and three months in jail and that the dispute had been settled.
The State’s counsel said there was no merit in the appeal but agreed that appropriate orders may be passed.
The Court noted the time already undergone and stated that out of the five-year sentence, more than two years had been served. Therefore, it upheld the conviction but reduced the remaining sentence.
The Court ordered,
“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.”
The appeal was allowed in these terms, and all pending applications were disposed of. The operative part of the judgment also repeated the Court’s direction that the appellants be released immediately.
In the operative portion, the Court again said,
“The prayer/application for impleadment of de-facto complainant and his wife as respondents to this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise between the private parties. Cause title be amended accordingly. Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody. Leave granted. The appeal is allowed and disposed of. Reasoned judgment shall follow.”
It added,
“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.”
The appeal was allowed to this limited extent, while the conviction was left untouched, showing that reducing a sentence does not cancel the finding of guilt but reflects the Court’s balanced view of the circumstances.
Case Title: Venkatesh & Another v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Read Attachment