In a significant ruling that balances the rigors of criminal law with the practicalities of restorative justice, the Supreme Court of India has reduced the prison sentence of two men convicted of causing grievous hurt. While the Court upheld their legal conviction, it ordered their immediate release based on the fact that they had already served nearly half of their five-year sentence and had reached a mutual compromise with the victims.

A Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prasanna B. Varale delivered this judgment in the case of Venkatesh & Anr. vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police. The decision highlights how a settlement between parties, though not enough to wipe away a serious criminal conviction, can be a valid ground for the judiciary to show leniency in the duration of the punishment.

The case dates back to 2016, following an incident registered as Crime No. 103/2016. The two appellants, Venkatesh and another individual, were accused of committing acts that led to serious injuries and property damage.

On November 3, 2020, the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge in Salem, Tamil Nadu, found the duo guilty. They were convicted under:

Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992: For causing damage to property.

The Trial Court sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 IPC and two years under the TNPPDL Act, with both sentences ordered to run concurrently.

Seeking relief, the appellants approached the Madras High Court in 2020. However, the High Court was not inclined to interfere with the lower court's findings. On February 7, 2023, the High Court dismissed their appeal, affirming both the conviction and the five-year sentence. The High Court merely noted that the time they had already spent in jail would be "set off" against their total sentence, as per Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Left with no other choice, the appellants moved the Supreme Court of India.

When the matter reached the Apex Court, the bench initially narrowed the scope of the challenge. On January 17, 2025, the Court issued a notice to the State of Tamil Nadu, but limited it only to the "quantum of sentence." This meant the Supreme Court was no longer looking at whether the men were "guilty" or "innocent"—their guilt was already a settled fact. The only question remaining was: Is five years in prison too much under the current circumstances?

The Arguments for Leniency

The counsel appearing for the appellants presented two main arguments:

Time Served: It was pointed out that the appellants had already spent two years and three months behind bars. This constitutes nearly half of the original five-year sentence.
The Compromise: Most importantly, the counsel informed the Court that a compromise had been reached between the appellants and the victims (the de facto complainant and his wife). In light of this settlement, the counsel argued that sending the men back to finish the remaining term would serve no constructive purpose.

The State’s Response

The Additional Advocate General (AAG) representing the State of Tamil Nadu maintained that while the appeal might lack merit on legal technicalities, the State would leave the final decision to the wisdom of the Court.

The Supreme Court took a pragmatic view of the situation. The bench first allowed the application to include the victims (the complainant and his wife) as parties to the appeal, acknowledging that a settlement had indeed taken place.

1. Conviction Remains Intact

It is a settled principle of Indian law that certain serious offences, like Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt), are "non-compoundable." This means they cannot be simply "cancelled" or "withdrawn" just because the parties have made peace. The Court upheld this principle by upholding the conviction. This means the legal record will still show that the appellants committed the crime.

2. Reduction in Sentence

However, the Court found that the "ends of justice" would be met if the sentence was reduced. The bench noted:

"We find that out of five years of sentence imposed on the appellants, they have already completed two years and three months... therefore, while upholding the conviction of the appellants herein, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone."

The Court emphasized that because the parties had settled their private disputes and the appellants had already served a substantial amount of time, they should be released immediately.

This judgment serves as an important reminder of the following legal concepts:

Compromise vs. Compoundability: In serious crimes, a compromise between the attacker and the victim does not automatically lead to an acquittal. The State is the ultimate prosecutor in criminal matters.
Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: Even if a crime is serious, the Supreme Court has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution (and general appellate powers) to modify a sentence if a settlement has happened. This is often done to promote harmony between neighbors or relatives who may have been involved in a fight.
Period Already Undergone: Courts often use the "period already undergone" as a middle ground. It ensures the accused is punished for the crime (by spending years in jail) but is allowed to return to society once a settlement is reached.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellants be released forthwith from jail, provided they are not required in any other legal case.

Case Details:

Case Title: Venkatesh & Anr. vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5156 of 2025
Date of Judgment: December 02, 2025
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.