JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1991 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1994.

2. Vide order dated 02.012.2021, it is noted by this Court that the appellant No. 1 Tulsi Ram and appellant No. 4 Ram Lal have expired.

3. Thus, the appeal to the extent of appellant No. 1 Tulsi Ram and appellant No. 4 Ram Lal stands abated. Hence, the present appeal now survives only against appellants No. 2 and 3, as stated to be alive.

4. Mr. Yasu Parihar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 16.07.1994, passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh Camp Chittorgarh, in Special Sessions Case No. 219/92 (23/92), whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 504 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months R.I. and under Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo six months’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of which they were ordered to further undergo fifteen days S.I.

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 further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 05.08.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) No. 374/1994.

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

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 West Bengal, (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 is also conscious of the judgments rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Hakam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 Cri. L.R. 1294 and Puran Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 1 Cri. L.R. 662, pertaining to the Rajasthan Excise Act, wherein it was clearly held that in special conditions, owing to the facts and circumstances of a case, the minimum sentence can be overlooked by the Hon’ble Court for the purpose of passing an order, substituting the sentence awarded, with the period already undergone by the accused, where the sentence undergone by the accused is less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the relevant statute.

6.3