JUDGMENT :

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

“It is therefore prayed that conviction and sentence so passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Pali dt. 9.3.94 may kindly be quashed and set aside, and accused appellant be acquitted for the offence with which he has been charged with and if this Hon’ble Court comes to conclusion, that offence is made out, then looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, he be given probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.”

3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1990 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1994.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 09.03.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No. 22/92 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:-

4.1 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.

4.2 Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 22.03.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.144/1994.

4.3. Learned counsel, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner(s) may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

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

6.1. 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 of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”

6.2. This Court