The court may reduce a sentence to the period already served based on restorative justice principles and the protracted nature of the case.

Order :

1. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.08.2017 passed by Nayayadhikari, Gram Nayayalaya, Kudli, Sikar in Criminal Case No.159/2005 BT No. 72/2007 whereby the trial Court accused-petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable u/S 279, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC. For offence u/S 279 IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. For offence u/S 337 IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. For offence u/S 338 IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo one years’ simple imprisonment and for offence u/S 304-A IPC, the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo two years’ simple imprisonment. The petitioner had further challenged the aforesaid order/judgment dated 23.08.2017 by filing a Criminal Appeal bearing (CIS No.) 153/2017 before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 4, Sikar whereby the learned Court vide order dated 07.07.2018 had dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the court below.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended by the Court vide its order dated 25.07.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 2005 and this petition has been pending since year 2018. Counsel makes only a limited prayer that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. In Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts & circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute, observed as under:-

“43………….we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said -“The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.”

(Emphasis supplied)

This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed hereinabove, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Mohd. Firoz (supra), held that the Court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the sentence awarded to the accused. More so, this would be directed when the matter is an old one, and a deserving case at that, to reduce the sentence awarded to an accused person, to the time/sentence already served by him. Similarly, in special acts, with regard to the age/pendency of the matter, depending on the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court may deem it a fit case for applying the same aforementioned principle to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by him.

6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Vinod Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan; SLP(Crl.) No. 6152/2024 and Chander Shekhar Vs. State of Rajasthan; Criminal Appeal No. 4161/2024 and Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

Vinod Kumar (Supra)

“Considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1990 and that the appellant had also, being the driver of the vehicle, substantially suffered injuries, we feel that