The court may reduce a sentence to the period already undergone when considering the time served and mental trauma, while upholding the conviction under relevant laws.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Application (1/2023) for early listing of the case is allowed for reasons stated therein.

2. The matter is being heard and decided today itself.

3. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 04.04.1997 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No. 5/95 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:

4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Brief facts of the case are that SHO, PS Jayal, District Nagaur, recorded a Parcha Bayan of complainant Bhanwaru Ram on 29.09.1994 at Govt. Hospital, Jayal and on the basis of the said parcha bayan, Police registered a case against the appellant and started investigation.

6. According to the parcha bayan, on 29.09.1994 at about 8 PM, complainant Bhanwaru Ram, after completion of his work, was going towards his house. On the way, accused appellant stopped the complainant and insulted him by using caste oriented language/ filthy language and thereafter inflicted a stick blow on his left eye, due to which he fell down. Thereafter, the accused-appellant inflicted repeated stick blows to the complainant. The brother of the complainant came to his rescue and saved him.

7. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the present appellant for aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed by the trial court against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

9. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 04.04.1997 convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and Sections 325, 323, 341 IPC as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

10. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1994 and the accused appellant has remained in custody for quite some time, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

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

12. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant.

13. Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1994 and, the appellant has so far remained in custody for quite some period and has also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for quite some time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and Sections 325, 323, 341 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the amount of fine.

14