JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.:— This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.10.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, District Jaipur (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 32/1984 : State of Rajasthan v. Manohari, whereby, the accused-appellant (for brevity, “the appellant”) has been convicted and sentenced as under:—

Under Section 304 Part II IPC:— 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 4,000/-; in default thereof, one and half years’ rigorous imprisonment.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that a written report dated 13.04.1984 (Exhibit-P-2) came to be lodged by complainant Shri Phoolchand (PW-2) with the Police Station Manpur, District Jaipur alleging therein that the appellant has inflicted a lathi blow on the head of his mother resulting into her death whereupon, an FIR no. 59/1984 under Sec. 302 IPC was registered against him.

3. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against him. After committal, the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant under the aforesaid provision. The appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. The learned trial Court has, after trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant vide judgment dated 31.10.1987 as stated hereinabove.

4. Eschewing the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is about 39 and half years old, the appellant, who was aged about 28 years at that time, is 67 years of age today and has already remained in custody for a period of about ten months and ten days. He, in the aforesaid circumstances, submits that he would be contended if, while maintaining the conviction, sentence awarded is reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. The incident is dated 13.04.1984, the appellant, who, as per the arrest memo (Ex-P-7) dated 15.04.1984 was aged about 28 years, is now aged about 67 years and has remained in custody pre-conviction for a period of about 9 months and post-conviction for a period of about 1 month and 10 days before sentence awarded to him vide judgment dated 31.10.1987 was suspended by this Court vide order dated 09.12.1987.

8. Their Lordships have held in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. , (1998) 9 SCC 678 as under:—

Alister Anthony Pareira, (Supra)

“There is no strait jacket 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 circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”

Haripada Das, (Supra)

“….considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”

Their Lordships, have held in case of, Panchashila Dada Messhram v. State of Maharashtra , (2009) 17 SCC 81 , as under:—

“8. However, as far as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court finds that at the time of incident, the appellant was in advanced stag