The court may reduce a sentence based on the time already served and the circumstances of the case, while maintaining the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.03.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh, in Sessions Case No. 8/1997 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced each of the appellants as under:

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.07.1996, complainant Deoji Bheel submitted an oral report to police officials of P.S. Rashmi to the effect that when he was going towards Gegpura along with his relatives, near Luharia Bavji, the accused-appellant came armed with axe and lathis and caused grievous injuries to the complainant. Due to the injuries, complainant became unconscious and he was taken to hospital by his relatives. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused-appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323, 307 IPC and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the present appellants for offences under Sections 307, 325, 324, 323, 341/34 IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed by the trial court against the appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

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

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.03.2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

7. The criminal appeal qua appellants No. 1 & 3, Chittar & Nanda respectively has already been dismissed as abated by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2023, as both the appellants No. 1 & 3 had expired.

8. So far as appellant No. 2 Sukha is concerned, at the threshold, learned counsel submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and the accused appellant No. 2 has so far suffered a sentence of about one month, out of total sentence of three years' R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant No. 2 for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

9. On the other hand, 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.

10. 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.

11. Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1996 and the main allegation of causing head injury was upon appellant No. 1 Chhitar, who has already expired and the appellant No. 2 has so far undergone a period of one month incarceration, out of total sentence of three years' R.I., 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 No. 2 has remained behind the bars for quite some t