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

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 26.02.1993, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.54/91, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo two months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of which they were ordered to further undergo 10 days S.I.; under Section 3(i)(iv) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-each, in default of payment of which, they were ordered to further undergo one month R.I.; under Section 3(i)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-each, in default of payment of which, they were ordered to further undergo one month R.I. Upon deposition of such fine amount, the same shall be disbursed to the respondents No.2 to 6 (Rs.1000/-each) as compensation.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that out of seven accused-appellants, six accused-appellants namely Jeewan Ram S/o Shri Bhanu Ram, Kanji @ Kana Ram S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Rugha Ram S/o Shri Kesha Ram, Kalyan Ram S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Ram Chandra @ Chanda Ram S/o Shri Hukma Ram and Kalu Ram S/o Mukna Ram have expired and only accused-appellant No.3-Bachna Ram S/o Shri Mangla Ram is surviving, which is reflected from the report dated 26.04.2022 submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. The said report is taken on record.

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel also 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 appellant No.3 to the period already undergone by him.

4.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 18.03.1993 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.92/1993.

4.3. Learned Senior Counsel, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant No.3-Bachna Ram may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

5.1. 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