The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's application of sentencing principles, considering the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence, and other attendant circumstances in reducing the appellants' sentence.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.12.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions case no.54/2022 (11/2009) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellants may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against them."

2. The appellant No.2 Bitthu has expired.

3. The appellants No.1, 3 & 4 i.e. Ajmer Singh @ Balu, Rockey and Chand @ Rafi @ Yusuf have already served sentence of six years and nineteen days (as on 24.03.2015) in lieu of seven years' sentence awarded to them.

4. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2008 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2014.

5. Counsel for the appellant(s) submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 08.12.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case no.54/2011 (11/2009), whereby the learned court below while acquitting appellants under Sections 325, 342, 457 read with 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, convicted them for offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced them to undergo as under:-

6. Counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants were however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 04.03.2015 passed in S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No.108/2015.

7. Counsel for the appellants, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellants-Ajmer Singh @ Balu, Rockey and Chand @ Rafi @ Yusuf may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

9. 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"

10. In light of limited prayer made on behalf of appellants Ajmer Singh @ Balu, Rockey and Chand @ Rafi @ Yusuf, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellants (Ajmer Singh @ Balu, Rockey and Chand @ Rafi @ Yusuf) conviction under Section 394 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants (Ajmer Singh @ Balu, Rockey and Chand @ Rafi @ Yusuf) are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. The appeal of appellant no.2 Bitthu stands abated as he has expired.

11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.