JUDGMENT :

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

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court dated 25.03.2000 may kindly be ordered to be suspended till final decision of the appeal.”

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1997 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2000.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 25.03.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Cases (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jalore in Criminal Case No.14/98, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 458, 354 IPC and 3 (1) (ii) of SC/SC Act and sentenced as under :-

Section 458 IPC:- One years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further two months’ S.I.

Section 354 IPC :-

One years’ R.I. Section 3 (1) (T) SC/ST Act :- One years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further two months’ S.I.

3.1 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. 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 11.04.2000 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.85/2000.

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

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

7.2. This Court is also conscious of the judgments rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Hakam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 CriLR 1294 and Puran Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 1 CriLR 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.

7.3. Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 208,