The court can reduce a sentence to the time already served when considering prolonged custody and mental trauma of the accused while maintaining the conviction.

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 15.04.1997 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Cases Court, Merta in Sessions Case No. 30/93 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 on 13.02.1993, complainant Tilokaram submitted a written report at PS Didwana, District Nagaur to the effect that in the intervening night of 10/11.02.1993, when he and his wife Smt. Shanti were in the field for the purpose of harvesting the crop, at that time accused-persons including the present appellant came there in a drunken condition, armed with lathies and assaulted the complainant and his wife without any reason. The accused-appellant Rajuram also tried to commit rape with the wife of the complainant but on shouting, the accused-persons ran away. On this report, Police registered a case against the appellant and other accused-persons for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 323, 376/511 IPC and Section 3(xi) of SC/ST Act and started investigation.

6. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the present appellant and other accused persons for offences under Sections 147, 149, 447, 341, 323, 376/511 IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-persons under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

8. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.04.1997 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

9. 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 1993 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1993 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)(xi) of SC/ST Act and Section 147 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the amount of fine.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction and sentence for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act and Section 147 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The amount o