The court's decision was influenced by the sentencing principles, considering the crucial witness turning hostile and the non-recovery of the weapon of the crime, leading to the reduction of the appellant's sentence.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In 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 Court, for the safety of all concerned.

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

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be accepted and the conviction and sentences passed against him may kindly be set aside and the accused appellant may be acquitted of the charges levelled against him."

3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1988 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1994.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 25.03.1994, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar Camp Karanpur in Sessions Case No. 26/91 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo six months S.I.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 02.05.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence No. 157/94.

6. Mr. S.G. Ojha, counsel for the appellant, submits that the incident is of 18.8.1988 when it is alleged that the accused-party attacked the complainant with arms and ammunition, which included a 12-bore gun. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no recovery of weapon. PW-1 Chand Singh & PW-2 Gurubachan Singh have not supported the prosecution case.

7. Counsel for the appellant, however, made a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

9. 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..."

10. This Court takes note of the submissions and has also perused record of case and finds that crucial witnesses PW-1 Chand Singh & PW-2 Gurubachan Singh were declared hostile. The only witness, who supported prosecution case i.e. PW-5 Mitthu Singh was the injured witness. The gun itself was not recovered. Looking into overall circumstances, observations and submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that the crucial witness turning hostile and the weapon of crime not being recovered are the sufficient reasons for making limited intervention of this Court and, thus, while maintaining conviction of accused-appellant, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone, however, the fine amount is doubled i.e. Rs. 2,000/-.

11. In l