The High Court of Tripura holds that in the absence of adverse conduct during custody and after significant period served, sentences imposed under Sections 450 and 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) may be modified to the period already undergone; reaffirms the court’s discretion in moulding sentences based on record and conduct. This judgment allows future appellants to seek reduction of sentence as binding precedent within Tripura.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Crl.A(J)/72/2025 of Sri Surajit Gachi @ Swarajit Vs The State of Tripura |
| CNR | TRHC010015902025 |
| Date of Registration | 18-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD |
| Court | High Court of Tripura |
| Precedent Value | Binding in Tripura; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; Sentencing under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 450 and 304 Part II |
| Questions of Law | Whether, taking into account the period of imprisonment already undergone and good conduct in custody, the substantive sentence under Sections 450 and 304 Part II IPC can be reduced to period already served. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court, exercising its appellate powers in a criminal appeal under Section 374 CrPC, may modify the sentence imposed by the trial court if the convict has already served a substantial part of the sentence and no adverse conduct is recorded during custody. In the present case, the appellant had already undergone almost the whole of the maximum awarded sentence, with no adverse remarks regarding conduct. The appellate court found it just and appropriate to reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone. The order ensures the release of the appellant, subject to any other requirements. The decision is based solely on the period of detention served and good conduct in custody. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 149/450 and 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to five years RI (with fine) under Section 450 and nine years RI under Section 304 Part II, to run concurrently. The appellant had already served almost nine years in custody with no adverse conduct. The appeal challenged the conviction and sentence, seeking setting aside or modification of the same. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the State of Tripura |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court has reaffirmed that appellate courts retain discretion to reduce the sentence to period already undergone, where the convict has served a substantial portion of the sentence and there are no adverse conduct remarks.
- Period of actual custody and the prisoner’s conduct are determinative factors in sentencing modification.
- Lawyers can rely on this authority to argue for sentence reduction in similar factual and procedural circumstances, especially in appeals concerning lengthy custodial detention.
- The court’s modification power is exercised even for serious offences under Sections 450 and 304 Part II IPC, subject to proper justification on the facts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the convictions and sentences under Sections 149/450 and 304 Part II IPC, imposed concurrently by the trial court.
- It specifically reviewed the record to establish that the appellant had already undergone approximately 8 years, 10 months, and 23 days of imprisonment, nearly the full term awarded under Section 304 Part II.
- The absence of adverse remarks concerning the conduct of the appellant during custody weighed in favour of considering leniency.
- The High Court exercised its discretionary appellate powers to modify the substantive sentence so that it equated to the period already served, ordering immediate release unless required in other matters.
- The reasoning focused entirely on the period already undergone and the record of conduct, without engaging in re-appraisal of evidence or merits of conviction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner / Appellant:
- Challenged the conviction and sentence under Sections 149/450 and 304 Part II IPC.
- Prayed for setting aside or modification of the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Respondent / State:
- Opposed the appeal (specific arguments not set out in the judgment excerpt).
Factual Background
The case arises from an incident on 19.03.2013, when the accused allegedly assaulted the complainant’s family, resulting in severe injuries and the subsequent death of the complainant’s father. An FIR was filed under Sections 148, 149, 450, 325, and 302 IPC at Khowai Police Station. The accused was charged under Sections 148, 149, 450, 325, and 302 IPC, but convicted under Sections 149/450 and 304 Part II. The trial court awarded concurrent sentences of 5 and 9 years RI. The appeal challenged the conviction and sentence after nearly nine years of imprisonment were served, with a clean record in custody.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 374 CrPC: Appeal against conviction.
- Sections 149, 450, 304 Part II IPC: Charges and sentencing provisions considered.
- The judgment demonstrates the High Court’s power under appellate jurisdiction to modify sentences in the interests of justice, particularly based on time served and prisoner’s conduct.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Discretionary appellate power to modify sentence on facts affirmed.