JUDGMENT :

1. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a copy of the report dated 30.08.2023 furnished by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Khairthal-Tijara for perusal of this Court.

2. The report is taken on record.

3. This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant (for brevity “the appellant”) against the judgment dated 10.03.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.20/1988: State of Rajasthan versus Gurudayal Singh & Anr. whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

(i). under Section 304 Part II IPC:-4 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default thereof, 5 months’ rigorous imprisonment.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that a written report dated 05.03.1988 (Exhibit-P-6) came to be lodged by Shri Pritam Singh (PW-3) with the Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar wherein, it was alleged that on that very day at about 8:00 PM, Rajendra Singh was inflicted with a stab wound on his chest by the appellant with a knife whereupon, an FIR No.34/1988 (Exhibit-P-7) came to be lodged on 06.03.1988. Initially, the case was registered under Section 324/34 IPC; but, on death of Rajendra Singh during the course of investigation, it was converted under Section 302/34 IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant and a co-accused under Section 302/34 IPC. After the case was committed to the learned trial Court for trial, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

5. Eschewing the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is about 35 years old, the appellant, who is aged about 83 years as on date, was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC acquitting him from the charge under Section 302/34 IPC. She, therefore, prays that while maintaining the conviction, the appellant’s sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

7. Heard. Considered.

8. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant has been facing trauma of pendency of this criminal case for last about 35 and a half years. As per the arrest memo (Exhibit-P-17), age of the appellant on 13.03.1988 was 43 years which, as on date, comes to about 80 years. As per the report dated 09.08.2020 furnished by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Bhiwadi, the appellant was aged, on that day, based on his Aadhar Card and Ration Card, about 80 years which, as on today, comes to about 83 years. The appellant has already remained in custody for a period of two months and nineteen days as per the custody certificate dated 30.08.2023 issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Alwar appended with the report dated 30.08.2023 furnished by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Khairthal-Tijara.

9. Their Lordships have held in the cases of, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012: (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678 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