Justice Better Served Through Compensation After Two Decades: Kerala High Court Modifies Sentence in Assault Case

"The incident took place in the year 2003... 22 years have elapsed... I find that the interest of justice would be served by adequately compensating the injured." – Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of two individuals for wrongfully restraining and voluntarily causing hurt but significantly modified their sentence in light of the 22-year gap since the incident. Justice C.S. Sudha, delivering the judgment, ruled that “the interest of justice would be served by adequately compensating the injured” rather than imposing harsh imprisonment after such a prolonged period.  

The judgment has brought into focus the role of restorative justice principles in sentencing, especially in cases where inordinate delay and absence of criminal antecedents justify a shift from incarceration to compensation.

 “An Assault in Retaliation”

The prosecution case traced back to 28th September 2003, when Sharafudeen (Accused No.1) and Sihabudeen (Accused No.2), in retaliation for an earlier altercation involving a third accused (later acquitted), wrongfully restrained PW1 and PW2—two minor boys—on a public road using an autorickshaw and assaulted them.  

According to the final report, “Accused no.1 sprinkled chilli powder on the face of PWs 1 and 2, took out an iron rod… and accused no.2 a stick, and both of them beat PWs 1 and 2,” thereby attempting to retaliate for an earlier beating received by A3 from PW2. The accused fled the scene as another autorickshaw approached.

 A case was registered by Pandikkad police under Crime No.121/2003, and after investigation, the accused were charged under Sections 341, 324, 308, and 109 read with Section 34 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Manjeri, where the trial proceeded.

After evaluating the prosecution’s evidence, the trial court acquitted Accused No.3 of all charges and also acquitted Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 308 and 109 IPC. However, it found them guilty under Sections 341 and

324 IPC. They were sentenced to one month’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 under Section 341 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000 under Section 324 IPC.

 Importantly, the trial court had directed that the sentences should run concurrently and that the fine amounts, if realized, be paid to the injured as compensation.

“Testimony of Victims Is Clear and Corroborated”: Court’s Observation on Evidence  

Justice C.S. Sudha meticulously reviewed the testimony of the injured witnesses and other supporting evidence. PW1 and PW2, the victims, had clearly narrated the events leading to the assault, identifying the weapons (MO1 and MO2) and the sequence of events. The judge observed:  “The testimony of PW1 is corroborated by PW2... Further, the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 is corroborated by the testimony of PW3, an eyewitness... The testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 has not been discredited in any way though they were extensively cross-examined.”  

The medical evidence also supported their claims. PW5, the attending doctor, confirmed multiple injuries, abrasions, and conjunctival congestion consistent with the use of chilli powder and physical assault.

The Court concluded that “the evidence on record shows that accused nos.1 and 2 had wrongly restrained PWs 1 and 2 and had voluntarily caused hurt to them.”

“Justice Demands More Than Just Punishment”: Modified Sentence in the Interest of Equity  

Having confirmed the conviction, Justice C.S. Sudha turned to the question of sentence. Noting that 22 years had passed since the incident and that there were no reported criminal antecedents against the accused, the Court held:  “The incident took place in the year 2003. 22 years have elapsed since the incident… I find that the interest of justice would be served by adequately compensating the injured/witnesses.”

Accordingly, the Court modified the sentence as follows: “The conviction of accused nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 IPC is confirmed. They are sentenced to imprisonment for a day till the rising of the court.”  

Additionally, the Court imposed compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.: “Accused nos.1 and 2 shall pay compensation of ₹5,000 each to PW1 and ₹7,500 each to PW2... in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.”  

This shift from incarceration to victim compensation underscores the evolving jurisprudential approach that centers victims' rights and the equitable use of penal powers.

In affirming the conviction but substituting jail time with compensation, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed a crucial principle — that punishment must be proportionate not only to the offence but also to the passage of time, the conduct of the accused, and the needs of the victims. By holding that “justice would be better served” through reparation rather than retribution, the Court has set a compassionate yet firm precedent in criminal sentencing.

Date of Decision: 28 March 2025