AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 171 wordsLeave granted.
Heard Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sowmik Ghosal, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction.
It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants that the incident is of 1985 and the appellants are elderly persons. It is put forth that in the meantime, they have suffered immensely. Learned counsel has also suggested for enhancement of amount of compensation. Regard being had to the said submissions, we are inclined to reduce the sentence to two years with the stipulation that each of the appellants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) before the trial court within a period of eight weeks hence. The victims are entitled to withdraw the same on proper identification.
With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the appeal stands disposed of.