Sentencing discretion allows for the dispensing of substantive sentences based on the accused's advanced age, lack of criminal antecedents, and the mental agony resulting from the prolonged pendency of the trial.

Order

1. Learned GA-cum-AAG submitted the status report dated 06.02.2026 furnished by SHO, Police Station Bhadsora, District Chittorgarh along with a certificate even dated issued by the Gram Panchayat Napaniya, Tehsil Bhadesar which reflects that while, the appellant No.2 Rupa son of Mohan is alive, the appellant No.1 Narayan alias Naru son of Bheru has expired.

2. In view thereof, this appeal stands abated qua the appellant No.1-Narayan @ Naru and survives qua the appellant No.2-Rupa. Therefore, the consideration is confined only to his extent.

3. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.09.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera (for short-"the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No.132/1994 whereby, while acquitting the accused-appellant (for short-`the appellant’) under Section 302 IPC, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Under Section 352 IPC: 3 months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-; in default whereof, 20 days’ additional simple imprisonment.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Kalu Singh - Assistant Sub-Inspector, submitted a written report dated 27.06.1994 at Police Station Bhadsora wherein, it was averred that a person namely, Shanker Gayari informed on 23.06.1994 that he found a dead body of an unknown person floating in his well whereupon, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the appellant, along with co-accused, was responsible for abetting the deceased to commit suicide whereupon, an FIR No.131/94 dated 27.06.1994 (Ex. P-14) came to be registered under Section 306 IPC. After investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted along with the co-accused under Section 302 IPC. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. After trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as supra.

5. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant, giving up challenge to his conviction under Section 352 IPC, contended that he is aged about 63 years, has no criminal antecedents except the present one and has been facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 32 years and therefore, while maintaining the conviction, the substantive sentence may be dispensed with. She, therefore, prayed for disposal of the appeal in aforesaid terms.

6. Per contra, although, learned GA-cum-AAG opposed the prayer but, could not dispute the factual scenario as narrated by learned counsel for the appellant.

7. Heard and considered.

8. A perusal of the judgment dated 14.09.1995 reflects that while acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC, he was convicted under Section 352 IPC and sentenced, as stated hereinabove. As per the status report dated 06.02.2026, he is aged about 63 years as on date. No other criminal antecedent is reported for last about 32 years while on bail. He has been facing mental agony on account of pendency of this case for last about 32 years.

9. Their Lordships have held in the cases of, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012 : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678, as under:-

“Alister Anthony Pareira (supra)-

"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant