State of Rajasthan, through PP vs For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Bharat Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 22/01/2025 Order

1. The challenge in the present Criminal Appeal, filed by the accused appellants u/S 374(2) CrPc has been made to judgment dated 18.01.1995, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura (Tonk) (for short, “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.43/1994, whereby the trial court while acquitting the accused appellants from the charges u/S 304-B, 201 & 176 IPC, convicted them for the offence u/S 498A IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, each of them was ordered to further undergo 3 months’ rigorous imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:3674] (2 of 5) [CRLA-78/1995]

2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 1994 and this criminal appeal has been pending since year 1995. Counsel makes only a limited prayer that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present accused-appellants may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.

3. In support of submissions, learned counsel for the accused appellants placed reliance upon order dated 02.07.2009, passed in the case of Mahendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2009(5) WLC (Raj.) page 789, whereby the appeal filed by the accused appellants was partly allowed and the sentenced awarded to them was reduced for the period already undergone by them in confinement.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellants.

5. Heard. Perused the record. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:3674] (3 of 5) [CRLA-78/1995] 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), and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar (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 also conscious of the judgments rendered in 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:- 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 circumstances.” Haripada Das (Supra) “...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel [2025:RJ-JP:3674] (4 of 5) [CRLA-78/1995] that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...”

7. This High Court in the case of Jiyaram Devasi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Revision appeal No.400 of 1998, decided on 15.07.2019, (2019(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1415), has observed as under: “11. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1994 and the accused- appellants have so far undergone a period of one month and eleven days incarceration out of total sentence, and so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-appellants have 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 341, 323 and 326 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them while increasing the amount of fine. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellants’ conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine of Rs.200/- imposed for offence u/S 341 IPC and Rs.500/- imposed for offence u/S 323 IPC is hereby maintained, however the amount of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed for offence u/S 326 IPC is increased to Rs.2,000/-, in total each of the accused-appellants is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/- as fine. Two month’s time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo two months simple imprisonment. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.”

8. The present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1994 and this criminal appeal is pending since the year

1995. The appellants are said to be living peacefully in the intervening period and no adverse material or other criminal case is found to be registered against them. [2025:RJ-JP:3674] (5 of 5) [CRLA-78/1995]

9. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the accused-appellants and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the accused appellants for the offence u/S 498-A IPC, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The sentence of the accused appellants was suspended and they are on bail, therefore, they need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.

10. The impugned judgment of the trial Court stands modified as indicated hereinabove.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

12. Office is directed to send back the record of the trial Court. Sharma N.K./Dy. Registrar/88 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J