Facts Of The Case:
The appellants, Venkatesh and another individual, were originally convicted by the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C. No.460/2016 on November 3, 2020. The charges stemmed from Crime No.103/2016, under which they were found guilty of offenses under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. For the offense under Section 326 IPC, the trial court sentenced each appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, coupled with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with a default stipulation of an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment. Under the TNPPDL Act, they were each sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, also with a six-month default sentence. The trial court ordered that all sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by this conviction and the quantum of punishment, the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.481/2020 before the High Court of Madras. However, the High Court, by its impugned judgment dated February 7, 2023, dismissed their appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision, directing them to undergo the remaining sentence while granting set-off for the period already undergone under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Subsequently, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition. During the proceedings, it was noted that a compromise had been reached between the private parties, leading to the impleadment of the de facto complainant and his wife. The Supreme Court, having issued notice limited to the question of sentence, observed that the appellants had already served two years and three months of their incarceration. Taking into account the compromise and the period of sentence already undergone, the Court modified the quantum of punishment, reducing it to the period already served, while upholding the underlying conviction.
Procedural History:
The case originated as Crime No.103/2016, leading to trial before the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C. No.460/2016. On November 3, 2020, the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for five years and two years respectively, with fines and default sentences. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.481/2020 before the Madras High Court. The High Court, by judgment dated February 7, 2023, dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s decision and directing the appellants to undergo the remaining sentence while granting set-off for the period already undergone under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition arising out of Diary No.52993 of 2024. The Supreme Court initially issued notice on January 17, 2025, limited only to the question of quantum of sentence. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, an application for impleadment of the de facto complainant and his wife was filed, which was allowed in view of a compromise between the private parties. On December 2, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its final judgment, allowing the appeal in part by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone while upholding the conviction, thereby disposing of the matter.
READ ALSO:When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several significant observations while adjudicating the appeal. The Court first noted that on January 17, 2025, it had specifically issued notice to the respondents limited only to the question of quantum of sentence, thereby restricting the scope of consideration to the appropriateness of the sentence rather than the validity of the conviction. The Court observed that the appellants were in custody and had already completed two years and three months of incarceration out of the five-year sentence imposed under Section 326 IPC. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the appellants had undergone nearly half of the substantive sentence imposed upon them. Another crucial observation pertained to the compromise and settlement of disputes that had been reached between the private parties, which the Court considered as a relevant factor while determining the appropriate quantum of punishment. The Court also noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the period of incarceration already undergone. In response to the State’s submission that appropriate orders may be made, the Court observed that while the conviction must be upheld as notice was not issued on that aspect, the sentence could be modified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court ultimately observed that considering the period of sentence already undergone by the appellants, which amounted to two years and three months, and the compromise between the parties, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. The Court further observed that upon such reduction, the appellants were entitled to be released forthwith from jail, subject to the condition that they were not required in any other case.
Final Decision & Judgement:
Case Details:
Case Title: Venkatesh & Another v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police Citation: 2025 INSC 1383 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5156 of 2025 Date of Judgment: December 2, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Download The Judgement Here