The court has the discretion to reduce a sentence considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the lack of criminal antecedents and the absence of misuse of bail.

JUDGEMENT

By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge, Chhatarpur in Special Case No.136/2007 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo 2 month RI.

2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellants as amicus curiae.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that the appellants tried to under Sections 294, 452, 323, 506 (Part-II) of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act but after trial, they have been convicted under Section 323 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence on record, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, he submits that in fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the findings of learned trial Court does not call for any interference. Court is at liberty to consider the matter on the point of sentence.

6. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by judgment dated 16.12.2009 convicted the appellants under Sections 323 of IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference. The judgment of conviction under Sections 323 of IPC is upheld.

7. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2007 since then the appellants are facing mental agony, the appellants remained in custody for 1 day. Appellant No. 1 was of 35 years of age, appellant No. 2 was of 26 years of age at the time of incident. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them under the bail. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 323 of IPC of IPC at that time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the extent of the period which they have already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (1 day) by them and the sentence of fine amount is maintained.

8 . The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. 9. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment. (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE L.R.