ORDER :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. Mr. Devendra Singh Bisht, who was earlier appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the accused-appellants but Mr. Bisht was unreachable, despite several attempts to contact, therefore, this Court, appoints Mr. Nitesh Mathur, to argue the instant appeal on behalf of the accused-appellants as Amicus Curiae under the free legal aid scheme. His remuneration shall be paid by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

^^vr% vihy is'k dj fuosnu gS fd vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj vijk/k /kkjk 323 Hkk-na-la- o vijk/k /kkjk 3 ¼1½ ¼x½ vuqlwfpr tkfr@tu tkfr vR;kpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds vijk/k ls vihyk.V dks cjh fd;k tkosA**

4. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1992 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1993.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 23.06.1993, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.19/1993, though acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 3(1) (4) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 323 of IPC and for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellants were sentenced to undergo six months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-each, in default of payment of which they were ordered to further undergo ten days S.I.; for the offence under Section 323 IPC, imposed a fine of Rs.250/-each, in default of payment of which they were ordered to further undergo one month’s S.I.

5.1 Learned counsel submits that in the special circumstances, where the matters are of extremely old pendency and unless there are aggravating circumstances, the same need not be revisited on merits, and thus, it is a fit case for interference of this Court for passing of an order reducing the sentence awarded to the appellants to the period already undergone by them.

5.2 Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 21.07.1993.

5.3 Learned counsel, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

7.1. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”

Haripada Das (Supra)

“…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts