In a brief but telling hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court trimmed the remaining jail term of two Salem residents convicted in a 2016 assault and property damage case. The bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prasanna B. Varale seemed attentive to both the compromise entered between the parties and the time already spent behind bars, steering the matter toward what felt like a practical closure. The courtroom atmosphere was quiet, almost weary, as counsel on both sides repeated details already etched in the record.
Background
The case stretches back nearly a decade. In 2020, a Salem Sessions Court had convicted Venkatesh and another accused in Crime No.103/2016 for causing grievous hurt under Section 326 of the IPC and for property damage under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. They were handed five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the assault and two years for the property offence, to run concurrently.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Procedural Flaws, Sends Bihar Murder Case Back for Fresh Section 313
Their appeal before the Madras High Court was dismissed in February 2023, leaving them to serve the remainder of the sentence. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the pair had already spent two years and three months in prison. Meanwhile, the complainant and his wife filed to be impleaded, confirming that the parties had settled their dispute. The bench allowed their impleadment, noting that the compromise “changes the texture of the case,” as one lawyer put it in court.
Court’s Observations
Once the Supreme Court restricted its notice to the question of sentence, the contours of the hearing became clear. Counsel for the appellants argued that the men had already undergone nearly half of the imposed punishment and urged the Court to consider their custody period along with the compromise.
Read also: Supreme Court Restores Seniority Rights of PSEB Employee After Nearly Five-Decade Legal Battle
“The appellants are in jail and have completed two years and three months of incarceration,” their lawyer stressed, hinting that continued imprisonment would serve little purpose now.
On the other side, the State’s Additional Advocate General didn’t press too hard. He simply noted that while the State saw no legal error in the conviction, it would “leave it to the Court’s discretion” regarding sentence reduction.
The bench appeared to acknowledge both sides. Justice Nagarathna remarked at one point, “We take note of the facts and circumstances… they have already completed a substantial part of the sentence.” The Court also recalled that its earlier notice was limited strictly to sentencing and not to reopening the conviction itself.
Decision
In its order, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, directing prison authorities to release the appellants forthwith, provided they were not wanted in any other case. For two men who have been in and out of courtrooms for nearly nine years, the decision seemed to offer an ending that was overdue but welcome.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Procedural Flaws, Sends Bihar Murder Case Back for Fresh Section 313
The appeal was formally allowed, with the Court noting that no further orders were required. With that, the bench closed the file - and for the appellants, the long wait for freedom ended at that very moment.
Case Title: Venkatesh & Another vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5156 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19524 of 2025 / Diary No. 52993 of 2024)
Case Type: Criminal Appeal – Sentence Reduction (IPC 326 & TNPPDL Act)
Decision Date: 02 December 2025
