The Court considered the nature of injuries, discrepancies in evidence, and the time elapsed in granting relief to the appellant.

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. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident in-question is of 26.01.1991 and already 32 years elapsed sine the incident has taken place.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant No. 3 Kamal Singh and appellant No. 4 Mool singh have already expired, which is also verified by the Public Prosecutor.

4. Thus, the present appeal to the extent of appellants No. 3 and 4 stands abated.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants No. 1 and 2 submits that appeal survives only to the extent of appellant No. 1 and 2. The appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 307 & 323/34 of IPC and appellant No. 2 has been given the benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his focal arguments is for appellant No. 1, who has been sentenced to four years imprisonment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards the injury report, which is Ex. P-8, which clearly reflects that the injuries were simple in nature.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the recovery was of a mauser rifle whereas the injuries are similar to that of pellet, thus, recovery of the arm and usage of arm itself become doubtful. Ex. P-7, Ex. P-8 & Ex. P-9, which are injuries report, which clearly shows as simple injuries.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, thus, makes a limited prayer that this Court may consider the statement of the Doctor as well as the discrepancies in the fire arm usage as well as the fact that the matter is 32 years old and all the injuries are similar in nature, the Court may consider the appeal and the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants were however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 10.11.1993 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension (Bail) Petition No. 429/1993.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal.

11. 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..."

12. This Court on a conjoint reading of the Ex. P-7, Ex. P-8 & Ex. P-9, which are the injury reports reflect that the injuries are simple in nature and also keeping in mind that the matter is about 32 years old and while taking into consideration the discrepancies in the usage of rifle, is inclined to provide the relief to the appellant and sentence awarded to the appellant No. 1 is substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

13. This Court, without making any interference on merits and in l