Venkatesh and Another vs State Represented by the Inspector of Police

2025 INSC 1383 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5156 OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.19524 of 2025 arising out of Diary No.52993 of 2024)

VENKATESH & ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ...RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

NAGARATHNA, J.

The prayer/application for impleadment of de facto

complainant and his wife as respondents to this appeal is allowed

in view of a compromise between the private parties. Cause title be

amended accordingly.

2. Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.

3. Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified 4. Digitally signed by NEETU SACHDEVA

By judgment and order dated 03.11.2020 passed in S.C. Date: 2025.12.04 17:26:09 IST Reason:

No.460/2016 by the learned III-Additional District and Sessions

1 Judge, Salem the appellants herein were convicted in Crime

No.103/2016 for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 3 (1) of the Tamil

Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (for short

“TNPPDL Act”). The appellants were sentenced under Section 326

IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years

with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment whereof, six more

months’ rigorous imprisonment each; and were sentenced under

Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of

payment whereof, six more months’ rigorous imprisonment each.

The sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, they

preferred Criminal Appeal No.481/2020 before the Madras High

Court.

6. By the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023, the High Court

dismissed the appeal of the appellants and directed them to

undergo the remaining sentence while observing that the period of

sentence already undergone by the accused shall stand set off

under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2

7. Being unsuccessful in their appeal(s), the appellants are

before this Court.

8. Vide order dated 17.01.2025, this Court issued notice to the

respondents limited only to the quantum of sentence.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that

appellants are in jail and have completed two years and three

months of incarceration under Section 326 of the IPC. He therefore,

submitted that the sentence imposed on the appellants may be

reduced to the period already undergone instead of what has been

imposed by the Sessions Courts, which has been affirmed by the

High Court. He submitted that there is also a compromise and

settlement of disputes between the parties and in the

circumstances this Court may reduce the sentence to the period

already undergone as they have undergone nearly half of the

sentence imposed on them.

10. Per contra, learned A.A.G appearing for the respondent/State

submitted that there is no merit in this appeal. However,

appropriate orders may be made in the appeal.

3

11. We take note of the facts and circumstances of the case. We

find that out of five years of sentence imposed on the appellants,

they have already completed two years and three months. This

Court had issued notice to the respondents only on the question of

sentence. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the

appellants herein, we reduce the sentence to the period already

undergone. The appellants shall be released forthwith from the jail

in which they are incarcerated, if they are otherwise not required

in any other case.

12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

13. The operative portion of this judgment shall be released

forthwith.

………………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

..……………………………………J. (PRASANNA B. VARALE) NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 02, 2025.

4 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. /2025 @ Diary No(s). 52993/2024)

VENKATESH & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ….RESPONDENT(S)

OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT

The prayer/application for impleadment of de-

facto complainant and his wife as respondents to

this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise

between the private parties. Cause title be

amended accordingly.

Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of. Reasoned

judgment shall follow.

1 While upholding the conviction of the appellants

herein, we reduce the sentence to the period already

undergone. The appellants shall be released forthwith

from the jail in which they are incarcerated, if they

are otherwise not required in any other case.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of

………………………………………J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

….……………………………………J. [PRASANNA B. VARALE] NEW DELHI DECEMBER 02, 2025

2 ITEM NO.17/1 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 52993/2024

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-02-2023 in CRLA No. 481/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras]

VENKATESH & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent(s)

IA No. 45345/2025 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 10241/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 10246/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 10244/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

Date : 02-12-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE

For Petitioner(s) :Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. Hari Krishnan P V, Adv.

Mr. Dhass Prathap Singh V M, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv.

Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.

Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.

Ms. Arpitha Anna Mathew, Adv. Ms. Arjoo Rawat, Adv.

Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Adv.

Mr. K.S.Badhrinathan, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The prayer/application for impleadment of de-

facto complainant and his wife as respondents to

1 this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise

between the private parties. Cause title be amended

accordingly.

Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of

the signed non-reportable judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of

(NEETU SACHDEVA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

(signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

2