The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to the time already served, emphasizing justice must consider the accused's circumstances and hardships.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 10.08.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.9/2005 whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 04.06.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bijolia in Regular Criminal Case No.111/1999. The learned appellate Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:-

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.

3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 08.07.1999, complainant – Ramprasad submitted a report at P.S. Bijolia to the extent that on 06.07.1999 at about 11 AM when he went to his field in search of his father, one Omprakash informed him that the present petitioners took away his father on a motorcycle and locked him somewhere. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioners in the Court concerned.

4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioners for offences under Sections 365, 342 & 323 of IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 6 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 365, 342 & 323 of IPC vide judgment dated 04.06.2002 and sentenced them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal before the appellate court which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 10.08.2005. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Mr. OP Mishra, representing the petitioners, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and quantum of sentence modified by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1999. They had remained in jail for about one month after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against them. They hail from a very poor family and belong to the weaker section of the society. They are facing trial since the year 1999 and they have languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing their sentence.

6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners but does not refute the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for about one month and except the present one no other case has been registered against them.

7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioners remained in jail for some time and they are facing the rigor for last 26 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in