The court applied the principles of deterrence and correction in sentencing policy to reduce the appellants' sentence to the period already undergone.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.98 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case No. 10/97, State of Rajasthan v. Rameshwarlal and others, may be quashed and set aside and the appellant-convicts be acquitted for the charges levelled against them."

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1995 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 25.07.1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case No. 10/97, whereby the appellants were acquitted for the offences under Sections 307, 307/149 IPC, but convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 325, 323/149, 325/149. The appellant Rameshwar Lal was convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 325 and 323/149 IPC with sentence of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, fine of Rs. 100/-, two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and six months R.I. and the fine of Rs. 250/- respectively and in default of payment of Rs. 250 for one month, for Rs. 100/- seven days, for Rs. 500/- three months and for Rs. 250/- for one month's further to under S.I. respectively. The appellants Balaram, Sohanlal and Jesara were convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 325/149 and 323/149 of IPC with a sentence of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/- each, with a fine of Rs. 100/- each, two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/- each respectively and in default of payment of Rs. 250/- one month's, for Rs. 100/- seven days, for Rs. 500/- three months and for Rs. 250/- one month's further to undergo S.I. respectively. The appellant Jagdish Prasad was given the benefit under Section 6 to maintain peace and good behaviour for two years on a personal bond of Rs. 3,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount with an undertaking of not repeating such offence under Section 4 as well as compensation of Rs. 1000/- to be deposited under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 26.08.1998 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 424/98.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, 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.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

7. 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 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 se