The court may reduce a sentence to the period already undergone when considering the appellant's advanced age, the significant time elapsed since the commission of the offense, and the limited role played by the appellant in the crime.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.09.1983 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 434 of 1977 (State Vs. Haneef and others) arising out of Crime No. 55 of 1977, under Sections 147, 307/149 and 323/149 IPC, Police Station Tarwa, District Azamgarh by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 147 IPC for a period of 1 year rigorous imprisonment, under Section 307/149 IPC for a period of 7 years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323/149 IPC for a period of 1 years rigorous imprisonment. All sentences were to run concurrently.

2. During pendency of this appeal, appellant no.1 Haneef, appellant no. 2 Ishhag, appellant no. 3 Sudama Singh, appellant no. 5 Chandra Bhan Singh, appellant no. 6 Narsingh Singh and appellant no. 7 Abhimanyu Singh have died, therefore, appeal on their part stood abated. Appellant no. 4 Sarda Singh is still alive

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10/11.06.1977 in the night at about 12:00 o'clock Vishwanath Singh was talking with Jyoti Shankar Singh and others at his door where lantern was lit. Accused persons Nar Singh equipped with countrymade pistol, Abhimanyu and Haneef equipped with pistol; Sudama Singh, Sarda Singh, Ishhak, Chandrabhan @ Nanga equipped with lathi came there. The acused Nar Singh exhorted others to kill Vishwanath Singh on which all the accused persons with common object started firing and also assaulted with lathi inflicting injuries on the person of Vishwanath Singh. The wife of the injured came for rescue who was prevented by the present appellant Sarda Singh. The F.I.R. was lodged by the informant at the police station concerned. The injuries on the person of injured were examined at the hospital.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and recovered empty cartridges from the place of occurrence and also collected blood stained & plain soil and lantern. Torch was also taken into possession. Site plan was prepared and after recording the statements of informant and other witnesses, he found the case established against all accused persons and submitted charge sheet.

5. The learned court concerned, took cognizance of the offences and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

6. The learned trial court framed the charge against them on the basis of material on record which was read-over and explained to the appellants. They did not plead guilty but claimed for trial.

7. In support of its case, prosecution examined, P.W.1 Vishwanath Singh; P.W.2 Jitendra Shankar Singh; P.W. 3 Prabhakar Singh; P.W. 4 Dr. P.S. Shukla, P.W.5 Constable Ram Bali Mishra.

8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied the allegations and testimony as deposed by prosecution witnesses and told to be implicated falsely in the present case due to enmity. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.

9. After hearing the arguments for accused/appellants as well as the State, learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.1983 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as aforesaid.

10. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants but owing to the death of appellant no.1 Haneef, appellant no. 2 Ishhag, appellant no. 3