The court applied the principles of sentencing policy and the need for timely treatment of injuries in determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant.

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 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"it is, therefore, prayed that your Lordship's will be pleased to accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, dated 20.04.93 and accused appellant be acquitted for offence U/s. 307, 324, 323 I.P.C."

3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1989 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 20.04.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 41/89, whereby appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 324 & 323 of IPC, and sentence awarded to the petitioner were to run concurrently, as under:-

Section 307 IPC: Seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I.

Section 324 IPC: One year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months' R.I.

Section 323 IPC: Three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days' R.I.

5. Mr. Subhankar Johari, Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the written report was lodged on 22.03.1989 regarding the incident, which took place at the time of Holi function, in which, it is alleged that the present appellant inflicted knife blow upon one Kalyan Singh, the brother of the complainant, as well as also upon the complainant.

6. Learned counsel further submits that there are discrepancies in the evidence as the deposition of the witnesses was not supported by the medical evidence as the injury on the thigh of Kalyan Singh and on the eye of Sajjan Singh were differently reported. Learned counsel also submits that in the village, Holi celebration function was a common place, and thus, there could have been independent witnesses, which proves that the incident did not happen as it is reported.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the doctor was very clear in his opinion that there was no injury, which was dangerous to life unless of course if any of the injuries remain till date. The suggestion of consumption of alcohol and falling of the complainant was of course not accepted by the learned trial court.

8. Learned counsel also submits that the version of the prosecution itself was not fully believed as the other co-accused Mohan Singh, Hanuman Singh and Bhagwan Singh were all acquitted and on the same set of evidence, the present accused person has been convicted.

9. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards Exhibit P-4, the complaint; Exhibit P-3, the injury report of Kalyan Singh; Exhibit P-16, the Forensic report; Exhibit P-17, the injury report of Sajjan Singh and Exhibit P-29 the arrest memo.

10. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid facts create suspicion in the prosecution story, and thus, the benefit of doubt should go to the present appellant.

11. Learned counsel also submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 13.07.1993 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail/Suspension of Sentence Application No. 141/1993.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes 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.

13. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions on the ground that the injuries are there and the injured witnesses