IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the discretion to reduce a sentence based on the time already served and the overall circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 11.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Atrocities of Women), Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.57/2003 (63/2002) by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 31.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.21/1992, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced each of the present petitioner as under :

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, the learned trial court vide order dated 23.02.1991 convicted the accused persons including the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 323/149 IPC but gave them benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offernders Act. Against the said order, the complainant Ladu Singh filed an application on 27.01.1992 to the effect that accused persons murdered his father Bhopal Singh on 08.09.1991, therefore, the bail bonds of the accused-petitioners may be cancelled and order of sentence may be passed against them. An FIR was also registered against the accused persons. Subsequently, an application was also filed by the complainant on 08.09.1997 stating that the accused-persons were convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. Therefore, sentence may also be awarded to the accused-persons in this case.

4. After hearing the learned counsel, the trial court came to the conclusion that the accused-petitioners violated the conditions during probation period as imposed in the order dated 23.02.1991 and vide order dated 31.10.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offences as mentioned earlier.

5. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 11.09.2003. Hence this revision petition.

6. During the pendency of the revision petition, accused-petitioner No.2 Bhanwar Singh had expired and revision qua him was dismissed by this Court on 18.01.2024.

7. So far as petitioner No.1 Ratan Singh is concerned, at the threshold, counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1994 and he has so far suffered a sentence of about ten days, out of total sentence of six months’ RI. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner No.1 for the offence under Sections 323/149 & 148 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners.

10. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1994 and the accused-petitioner No.1 has so far undergone a period of ten days incarceration, out of total sentence of six months’ R.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner No.1 has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it