The court applied the principles of sentencing, considering the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, and the nature of the offence, to decide on the reduction of sentence for appellant No.2-Manoj Kumar.

ORDER

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

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 16.3.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur in Session Case No. 02/2011 (38/2014) (State Vs. Daularam & Ors.) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellants may kindly be acquitted in this case.

Any other order favourable to the appellants may also be passed."

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2010 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2018.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 16.3.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 02/2011 (38/2014) whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366 A and 376 (2) (g) of IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months additional imprisonment (for the offence under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC), six years RI and a fine of Rs. 6000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment (under Section 366A of IPC), and three years RI and a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 11/z months additional imprisonment (for the offence under Section 363 IPC).

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant No.2-Manoj Kumar was however suspended by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 14.9.2018 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. suspension of Sentence Application No. 535/2018.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the appellant No.2-Manoj Kumar may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that initially the allegations were levelled against five persons, out of which the learned Trial Court has acquitted three persons thereof.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court towards Paragraph 55 of the impugned order which reads as follows:-

8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that appellant No.1-Daularam essayed a major role in the commission of the actual offence, whereas the role of appellant No.2-Manoj Kumar in the offence was to only to the extent of rendering support to appellant No.1-Daula Ram.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants thereafter emphasizes upon the point that appellant No.1-Daula Ram has already served his sentence, and thus, does not require any indulgence of this Court.

10. Furthermore, appellant No.2-Manoj who is actually alleged to have committed a ’lesser’ offence of supporting appellant No.1-Daularam was granted bail by this Hon’ble Court on 14.9.2018, whereas he had completed a custody of about seven years and ten months.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposes, but is unable to refute the aforesaid factual submissions.

12. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. 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