The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to time already served, emphasizing reformative justice based on the elapsed time and personal circumstances of the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC, challenge has been made to the judgment dated 06.01.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.110/1993, whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 28.09.1993, complainant Narsinghram submitted a written report at the Police Station Mathania to the effect that on that day at 08.30 a.m. he received an information that cattle of Baburam Bishnoi were causing damage in his agriculture field. He along-with Goparam, Dhokalram, Kanaram, Jetharam and Nimbaram went to the field and drove the cattle out of the field. Thereafter, while they were returning on Hari Singh's tractor, at 09.15 a.m. Baburam Bishnoi, his sons Chenaram, Bhakarram, Bagaram, Chenaram's wife Murgali Bai and Deeparam came running towards them armed with lathis, stopped them and started hurling caste related abuses. Then they started assaulting them with lathis, due to which he became unconscious. His companions brought him back to the village on motorcycle. On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No.105/1993 for the offences under Sections 341 , 323 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act came to be lodged at the Police Station Mathania. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused appellants under Sections 341 , 323 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Osian from where the case was committed and transferred to the trial court.

3. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 9 witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. One witness was produced in defence. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge has convicted the accused for offences under Section 323 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act vide judgment dated 06.01.1994, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellants do not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. They submit that the dispute erupted on a very trivial issue and in the heat of the moment, the appellants inflicted injury. The incident is of the year 1993. The appellants are now aged 58 and 60 years respectively. It was the first criminal case registered against them. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct in the impugned judgment. They have faced the rigour of criminal case for nearly 30 years and have remained behind the bars for some time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants but does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the appellants as well as the fact that a very long period has passed since passing of the impugned judgment and the appellants have remained behind the bars for some time.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record.

7. Since the appeal against conviction i