IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the discretion to consider the time already undergone and the mental agony of protracted trial in reducing the sentence of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 26.09.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2002 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 08.02.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No. 1289/1992, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced each of the present petitioners as under:

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.07.1992, complainant/injured Jivanram gave a parcha bayan at Primary Health Centre to SHO, PS Phalodi to the effect that when he was going to his house from Phalodi Bus Stand, on the way the accused petitioners came armed with knife and lathi and caused grievous injuries to the complainant. On this report, the police registered the case against the accused petitioners and started investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed by the trial court against the accused petitioners, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 08.02.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offences as mentioned earlier.

6. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 26.09.2002. Hence this revision petition.

7. At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1992 and they have so far suffered a sentence of more than one month, out of total sentence of three years’ RI. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for the offence under Sections 341, 326, 326/34, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34 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 1992 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone a period of more than one month incarceration, out of total sentence of three years’ 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-petitioners have remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 341, 326, 326/34, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them while maintaining the amount of fine.

11. Accordingly,