Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse

"Taking into consideration that all the petitioners seem to have expressed remorse for the act perpetrated by them, we are of the considered view that it would be apt and appropriate to modify the sentence to the period already undergone" Supreme Court in a recent order dated September 30, 2026, affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) while modifying their sentence to the period already undergone.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi took into account the medical condition of the primary appellant and the overall conduct of the accused in granting this relief.

The appellants were originally tried for offences under Sections 353, 332, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to six months of simple imprisonment, while acquitting them of the more serious charges. This conviction and sentence were subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Court on April 2, 2026.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of six months imprisonment imposed upon the appellants for the offence under Section 323 IPC warranted interference. The court was tasked with balancing the legal sustainability of the conviction with the humanitarian grounds raised by the appellants during the appellate proceedings.

Court's Observations and Sentencing Discretion

The bench, after perusing the records and hearing the arguments, found no ground to interfere with the conviction as confirmed by the lower courts. The court maintained the finding of guilt regarding the offence under Section 323 IPC, which pertains to voluntarily causing hurt.

Judicial Discretion In Sentencing

However, the Court exercised its discretion in the matter of sentencing. It noted that the first appellant was suffering from Carcinoma, supported by a medical certificate issued by a radiologist. This medical necessity, combined with the appellants' outward display of regret, formed the basis for the Court's decision to modify the penalty.

"Having regard to the fact that petitioner No.1 is suffering from Carcinoma as evident from the medical certificate furnished by Dr. Anand Deshmukh (Radiologist) and taking into consideration that all the petitioners seem to have expressed remorse for the act perpetrated by them, we are of the considered view that it would be apt and appropriate to modify the sentence to the period already undergone."

The Supreme Court allowed the modification of the sentence, effectively reducing the six-month term of simple imprisonment to the duration of custody already served by the appellants. The appeal was disposed of with these directions, bringing a finality to the criminal proceedings against the appellants.

Date of Decision: 30 September 2026