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. Mr. Tanay Singh, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the accused-appellants under the free legal aid scheme of RSLSA. His remuneration shall be paid by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.

3. Mr. Tanay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 03.08.1994, passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) court, Pratapgarh in Special Sessions Case No. 22/1993 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 448 & 323 IPC and were sentenced as under:-(sentences to run concurrently)

3.1. 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 appellants to the period already undergone by them.

3.2. Learned counsel further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 02.09.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 405/1994.

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

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

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

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 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"

6.1. This Court is also conscious of the judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Hakam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 Cri. LR 1294 and Puran Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2011 1 Cri. LR 662, pertaining to the Rajasthan Excise Act, wherein it was clearly held t