The court considered the principles of sentencing policy and the gravity of the crime in reaching its decision to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.

JUDGMENT

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

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the criminal appeal may kindly be allowed and the appellants may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them or in the alternative they ma be given benefit of probation of offenders Act."

3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1991 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1993.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 26.06.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case 27/1991 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 307/34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act as under:-

5. The incident happened on 18.02.1991 at about 8:00 AM when certain boundary of a school was being constructed. It is alleged that appellant No. 1-Gyan Singh and appellant No. 2-Maan Singh came at the site and Gyan Singh fired two gunshots, which by-chance did not cause any injury to anyone.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that six persons were put to trial, out of which, four persons were acquitted and two persons, who are the appellants before this Court, were convicted.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the attribution of the gunshot was upon Gyan Singh and Gyan Singh has admittedly expired. Learned counsel also submits that the allegation upon appellant No. 2 is that he was verbally supporting the appellant No. 1 and thus, he has been convicted under Section 307/34 of IPC.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the evidence of Birbal Ram and Maniram does not prove in light of the fact that they have deposed that they came at the site, after the incident. Learned counsel further submits that the FSL report was not received in this case.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 21.07.1993 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Misc. (SOS) Application No. 252/1993.

10. Thus, at this stage, 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 even if it was a short sentence.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent oppose the submissions made on behalf of the appellants on the ground that there is a consistency in the statements of the complainant Het Ram and other eye witnesses Birbal Ram and Manniram.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor further submit that the consistency in the statements also points out that even if they were not at the site, which was the open site, anybody could hear the gunshot and look at the incident from even some distance.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor submit that the loaded gun along with six cartridges were received and was confiscated and that is why