The court has the discretion to reduce the sentence based on the circumstances, including the period spent on bail.

Headnote:
Appeal - Criminal Law - The court upheld the conviction of the accused under section 324, 447, 427 & 323 IPC, but acquitted him under section 307 IPC. The sentence was reduced to time already served, considering the 18 years the accused spent on bail. The gun seized from the accused's father was ordered to be returned.
Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted under section 307 IPC. The appeals were pending for about 18 years. The court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to time already served, considering the lengthy bail period.
Finding of the Court:

The court found no reason to interfere with the conviction and reduced the sentence to time already served due to the lengthy bail period. The court also ordered the return of the gun seized from the accused's father.
Issues: Conviction under multiple sections of the IPC, reduction of sentence, and return of seized property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction based on the evidence and reduced the sentence due to the lengthy bail period. The decision to return the seized gun was based on the lack of appeal against its return.
Final Decision: The appeal against the conviction was partly allowed, and the sentence was reduced to time already served. The seized gun was ordered to be returned.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal is directed against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated 30.3.1984 in Sessions Case No. 2/82 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused under section 324, 447, 427 & 323 IPC and acquitted him under section 307 IPC. Both the appeals are pending for about 18 years. The order of acquittal is passed on appreciation of evidence as well reasoned order requiring no interference. The appeal against the acquittal in the circumstances deserves to be dismissed. Similarly the finding of the accused person being guilty under section 324 of causing hurt is also recorded.

2. On appreciation of evidence I see no reason to interfere with the same. However, the accused persons have been on bail for last 18 years and there is no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back in jail. Interest of justice would be met, therefore, if the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction is maintained and the sentence is reduced to already undergone.

3. In this case the gun was seized from one Anand Singh father of the accused and that order has been made directing returning of gun. However, in spite of notice no appeal against returning of the gun has been preferred. The gun is returned to Anand Singh.

4. In the result the appeal against the conviction is partly allowed. The sentence is reduced to already undergone. The bail bonds if any are cancelled.Appeal partly allowed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1999 Supreme(Raj) 1492

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTV.G.Palshikar, J.Prem Singh - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1984.Decided On : 18-11-1999

The court has the discretion to reduce the sentence based on the circumstances, including the period spent on bail.

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
V.G.Palshikar, J.
Prem Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1984.
Decided On : 18-11-1999