The court can reduce sentences below the minimum prescribed in special circumstances, focusing on restorative justice and the specifics of each case.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Kumar Bharwani, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellant, namely Basant Kumar against the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.07.1992 passed by the Court of Judge, Special Court, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota, in Sessions Case No.160/1991, whereby the appellant was convicted & sentenced as follows :-

“For offence u/s. 3 (1) (10) of the Act of 1989: - The appellant was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

“For offence u/s.323 I.P.C.: The appellant was imposed a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. As per prosecution case, complainant– Rajendra Kumar Meena, L.D.C. A.C.M. Court, Digod lodged a written-complaint on 07.04.1991 at about 12:10 in the night alleging therein that on 06.04.1991 at around 05:30 P.M. when he was returning from Office, the accused & one Latoor (co-accused) on the way misbehaved/insulted and started beating & abused him by using caste oriented language. They also snatched the petitioner’s bag and inflicted injuries on his head & other parts of the body. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him. He pleaded not guilty & claimed trial. He was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C.

3. After considering the facts & circumstances of the case and material available on record, ld. Trial Court convicted the present appellant for the aforesaid offences, and granted the benefit of probation to the co-accused (Latoor) vide its judgment dt.06.07.1992.

4. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant are that the findings arrived at by the ld. Trial Court regarding conviction & sentence are patently illegal & perverse to the facts on record. In the special circumstances, where the matters are of extremely old pendency & unless there are aggravating circumstances, the same need not be revisited on merits and, thus, it is a fit case for interference of this Court for passing of an order reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him. The sentence, so awarded to the appellant was, however, suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 20.07.1992 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 266/1992. Lastly, counsel submits that he shall not assail the conviction of the appellant and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court. Hence, this petition be partly allowed & the sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.

7. Since the present appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by ld. Trial Court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

8. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, had observed as under:-

“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 circum