The court may reduce the sentence awarded to the accused to the period already undergone, especially in cases with long pendency and old incidents, in line with precedent laws.

JUDGMENT

1. Though, bailable warrant is awaited but counsel for the appellant submits that record has already been received and incident is of 02.03.1997. The maximum sentence awarded is of six months' rigorous imprisonment, thus, prayed to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by the appellant.

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

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused appellant may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him"

3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1997 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 27.04.1998, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Session Case No.35/97 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 454, 354 IPC & 3(i)(xi) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced as under:-

4.1 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 appellant to the period already undergone by him.

4.2 Learned counsel further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 12.05.1998 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application (Sos) No.241/1998.

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

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

7. 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"

8.1. 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, p