IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the discretion to reduce the sentence for an offence based on the time already spent in incarceration and the overall circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.09.1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 37/1985 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellants for offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo two years’ R.I. alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months’ S.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.07.1984 a murder accompanied with dacoity took place in the village Chagada Ka Kheda, which is situated at some distance from Chittorgarh in which one Smt. Shanta was killed and her ornaments were stolen. During investigation, Police received an information about the incident from one Chouthmal. In pursuance of the said information, Police recovered the ornaments of deceased Smt. Shanta from the shop of the appellants on 28.04.1985.

3. On the basis of aforesaid recovery, police made accused to the present appellants in the case for the offence under Section 411 IPC and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellants. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Section 411 IPC was framed by the trial court against the appellants, who denied the charge and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twenty seven witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statements of appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 21.09.1987 convicted and sentenced the appellants for offence under Section 411 IPC as mentioned earlier.

6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that since the occurrence relates back to year 1985 and the appellants have so far suffered a sentence of about one month, out of total sentence of two years, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

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

8. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellants.

9. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1985 and the appellants have so far undergone a period of about one month incarceration, out of the total sentence of two years’ R.I. so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellants 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 Section 411 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellants’ conviction for offence under Section 411 IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount is also waived. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

11. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.