The court established that sentencing must balance justice, the nature of the offense, and the circumstances of the accused, especially in prolonged cases.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Upman, J.

1. By way of this revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the convict-petitioners have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.12.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No.114/1998 whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and while affirming the conviction of the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC, reduced the sentences awarded to them by judgment dated 20.06.1997 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi in Criminal Case No.119/86, as below:

2. As per the prosecution case, on 24.10.1985, the complainant Atmaram submitted a written report (Ex.P/7) at Police Station Keshorai Patan alleging therein that in the morning, he along with his father Badrinath and one Hali Shankar were doing work. At that time, the accused persons who were armed with ballam, gandasi and lathis came there. It was alleged that Shyoji was having ballam in his hands whereas Devlal, Mangilal and Mohanlal were having Ghandasi in their hands. Ramswaroop, Ramkunwar and Devlal were having lathis in their hands. When his father asked the accused persons to take away the cart through the way, they accused persons started beating his father due to which, his father sustained several injuries.

3. On the basis of the above report, FIR No.150/1985 was registered at Police Station Keshorai Patan for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323 and 307 IPC and investigation was commenced. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 IPC

4. As one of the offences was under Section 307 IPC, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Bundi. However, the learned Sessions Court discharged the accused petitioners from the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and remitted the matter to the learned trial court for trial for remaining offences.

5. After remittance from the learned Sessions Court, learned trial court framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 326, 326/149, 324/149, 324, 325, 325/149, 323 and 323/149 IPC against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. After examining the accused petitioners under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., opportunity was also given to them to lead defence evidence. They denied the prosecution case. The accused Devlal examined himself as DW.1 in defence.

6. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 20.06.1997, convicted and sentenced them for the offences as mentioned above.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.06.1997, an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi (Raj.). The learned appellate court vide judgment dated 04.12.2004 partly allowed the appeal and while affirming the conviction of the accused petitioners for the aforesaid offences, reduced the sentences awarded to them by the learned trial court. Hence this revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of this revision petition, the accused petitioners Mangilal and Ramkunwar expired on 09.06.2014 and 09.10.2022 respectively. He has submitted the copies of the death certificates of both t