Order

13/01/2025 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20.12.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, Sriganganagar in Session Case No.5/1993 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Purna Nand Sahoo, Field-man, Central State Farm, Jetsar moved an application to SHO, PS Raisinghnagar to the effect that on 31.07.1989, when he was on duty, accused-appellant came and assaulted him with a stick. On the said report, Police registered a case against the appellant and started investigation.

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused appellant before the trial court. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the appellant under section

313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 20.12.1997 convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 333, 332, 353 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.

At the threshold, counsel for the appellant does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1989 and the appellant had remained in jail for two days. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He has been facing trial since the year 1989 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant.

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1989 and the accused-appellant has so far undergone a period of two days incarceration, out of total sentence of two years R.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-appellant has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 333, 332, 353 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant’s conviction for offence under Sections 333, 332, 353 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount is also waived. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

146-MS/-