The court can reduce sentences based on the duration already served and circumstances surrounding the case, while maintaining the conviction and fine imposed.

ORDER :

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 24.09.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 04/2002 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, upheld the judgment dated 05.06.2002 passed in Cr. Case No. 204/1996 by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under :

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.1995, complainant Fazal Khan submitted a written report to SHO, Lohawat inter-alia alleging therein that today at about 3:30 PM accused persons namely Nehaldeen, Sale Mohd. Sayar Khan, Hamid Khan came to his field armed with Dhariya and lathies and gave beating to him. When his son Ibrahim came to rescue him, then his son Ibrahim was caught hold by Nehaldeen and other accused persons gave a dhariya blow to his son's right hand and caused injuries. The complainant also alleged that the accused persons had enmity with him in respect of his agriculture land. On this report, Police registered FIR No. 153/1995 for offence under Sections 341 , 342, 323 IPC against the accused persons and started investigation.

4. After investigation, the police filed challan only against the present petitioner and accused Nehaldeen for offences under Sections 34 1, 342, 323, 326/34 IPC. Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial court against the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. In defence, two witnesses were examined by the petitioner.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 05.06.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.

7. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 24.09.2002. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner.

8. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1995 and out of total sentence of three years R.I., the accused petitioner has already served twelve days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioner for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner 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-petitioner.

11. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1995 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of twelve days in custody out of three years of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus,