The court may reduce a sentence based on compromise and time served while maintaining the conviction in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 06.03.2018 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Session Case No. 23/2015 (NCV No. 94/2016) by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the each appellants as under:

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.2015, complainant Mukhtiyar Ahmed gave parcha bayan to SHO, Soorsagar at MDM Hospital, Jodhpur to the effect that on 13.01.2015, when he was going for Namaz on his motorcycle, the accused persons came armed with deadly weapons like sword, lathi, iron rod, knife, bat etc. and attacked him. During the scuffle, he received severe injuries on his body. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused persons and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellants. Thereafter, the charges for offence under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 326/34, 307/34 IPC were framed by the trial court against the accused-appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 06.03.2018 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2015 and the accused appellants have so far suffered a sentence of about twelve days, out of total sentence of three years' S.I. and compromise has also been arrived at between the parties, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties. However, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

9. 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-appellants.

10. Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 2015 and, the appellants have so far undergone a period of twelve days incarceration, out of total sentence of three years' S.I. and have also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the facts that compromise has arrived at between the parties and the appellants have remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 326/34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellants' conviction for offence under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 326/34, the sentence awarded to them for the said offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months' time is hereby granted to the appellants to deposit the fine amount before the trial court.