The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence, and all other attendant circumstances in reaching its decision to partially allow the appeal and reduce the sentence.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of IPC against the impugned judgment dated 30.09.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 25/90. Vide judgment dated 30.09.1991, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. The present appeal arises out of the incident which happened on 02.06.1990 at Suratpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. An FIR No. 93/89 was registered under Section 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants. In the incident, Kewal Ram sustained injuries and during treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident and therefore, Section 302 of IPC was also added. The charge sheet in the case was filed and the trial court after undertaking the trial proceedings, convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. Against the order dated 30.09.1991 passed by the trial court, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the testimony of PW-3 Nathu Ram, fatal injuries to the deceased Kewal Ram was inflicted by Mohar Singh and Balveer and the learned trial court had convicted Balveer for the offence under Section 323 only, and thus the learned trial court committed an error while convicting the appellants under Section 304 part II. He further submits that no injury was caused by Hava Singh to the deceased as in the statement of PW-3 Nathu Ram, who is an eye witness, it has come on record that Hava Singh caused injuries to PW-3 Nathu Ram and therefore, the learned trial court committed an error while convicting the appellant Hava Singh under 304 part II vide judgment dated 30.09.1991.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident occurred on a very trivial issue as the appellants failed to repay the borrowed amount of Rs. 3,000/- to Nathu Ram and for recovery of the same, certain altercations took place between the accused and thus, Nathu Ram and the incident happened. Learned counsel submits that the incident is more than 32 years old and the appellants are aged 75 years and 81 years respectively, therefore, taking into consideration the time lapsed after the incident and the age of the appellants without making any interference on the merits/conviction passed by the learned trial court, the sentence awarded to the appellants may be substituted to the period of sentence already undergone by them. The appellants Hava Singh and Mohar Singh have already undergone a sentence of 3 months and 11 months respectively.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions and in alternate, he submits that a fine be imposed upon the appellants, which may be directed to be released to the complainant Nathu Ram, or his legal heirs.

6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. 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 consider