The court can reduce the sentence to the period already served, considering the time spent in custody and the mental trauma of a protracted trial.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge & Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No. 55/2013 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 10.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhariyawad (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Regular Criminal Case No. 119/2008, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioners as under:

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.2008, complainant Ramesh Chandra submitted a written report before Police Station Parsola to the effect that on instructions of SHO, he along with constable Manohar Singh went on beat duty at Dhanera, where he received information regarding illicit liquor being sold by the petitioner Gendmal. On receiving such information, the complainant went to the premises of Gendmal for conducting search, where the accused-petitioners gave beating to the complainant. On this report, the police registered the case against accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 332, 353 IPC and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused petitioners, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 10.07.2012 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offences as mentioned earlier.

7. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.12.2015. Hence this revision petition.

8. At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2008 and the petitioners have as so far suffered a sentence of eight days, out of total sentence of one year's S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for the offence under Sections 332, 353 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

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

10. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners.

11. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2008 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone a period of eight days incarceration, out of total sentence of one year's S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioners 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 Sections 332, 353 IPC and affirmed by