The court emphasized the consideration of the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, and all other attendant circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence.

JUDGMENT

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

"It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment and conviction passed by the court below dated 25.11.93 be set aside and the appellant be acquitted from all charges. In alternative it is also prayed that if any offence is proved under Sec. 325 I.P.C. the appellant may kindly be released on probation."

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1992 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1994.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 25.11.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case 142/93 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 304 (II) IPC and sentenced to undergo 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo 6 months’ S.I.

4. 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 18.03.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.121/1994.

5. 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.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

7. On perusal of record, this Court finds that the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and that, the incident occurred in a spur of moment. It was a sudden act and that there was no intention to cause death to deceased. There was only one injury on head inflicted by a ’lathi’. There were no continuous beating and that there was no blood on the ’lathi’ that was recovered.

8. 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 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."

9. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant’s conviction under Section 304 (II) IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.