1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1994.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 18.08.1994, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.52/1994 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo six months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo two months’ S.I.; and under Section 336 IPC sentenced with a fine of Rs.150/- in default of payment of which he was further ordered to undergo 15 days’ S.I.

2.1 Learned counsel submits that in the special circumstances, where the matters are of extremely old pendency and unless there are aggravating circumstances, the same need not be revisited on merits, and thus, it is a fit case for interference of this Court for passing of an order reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him.

2.2 Learned counsel further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 19.10.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence No.475/1994.

2.3. Learned counsel, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

4.1. This Court is 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 that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”

4.2. This Court is also conscious of the judgments rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Hakam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 CriLR 1294 and Puran Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 1 CriLR 662, pertaining to the Rajasthan Excise Act, wherein it was clearly held that in special conditions, owing to the facts and circumstances of a case, the minimum sentence can be overlooked by the Hon’ble Court for the purpose of passing an order, substituting the sentence awarded, with the period already undergone by the accused, where the sentence undergone by the accused is less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the relevant statute.

4.3. Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 208, was a case pertaining to the Arms Act, which also prescribes a minimum sentence, wherein this Hon’ble Court ruled in a similar manner as discussed hereinabove.

4.4. 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 and circumstances of the case, overlooked the prescription of a minimum sentence for offence under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute; and observed as under:-

“42. In the recent case of Shatrughna Baban Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 1 SCC 596 this court considering catena of earlier decisions in the light of section 302 read with section 376-A of IPC observed that as against section 302 IPC, while dealing with the cases under section 376-A IPC, a wider spectrum is available for consideration by the courts as to the punishment to be awarded. In the said case, this Court negatived the submission made on behalf of the appellant-accused that in the case based on circumstantial evidence, the death sentence should be commuted to the life imprisonment. However, considering the facts that the accused had not consciously caused any injury with an intent to extinguish the life of the victim, and that the offence in that case was under Clause Fourthly of Section 300 IPC, this Court had commuted the sentence of death penalty to the life imprisonment. The facts and circumstances of the case on hand are similar to the case of Shatrughna Baban Meshram with one distinction in that, Section 376A of IPC being applicable in the instant case.

43. Considering the above, we, while affirming the view taken by the courts below with regard to the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged against him, deem it proper to commute, and accordingly commute the sentence of death for the sentence of imprisonment for life, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Since, Section 376A IPC is also applicable to the facts of the case, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of appellant’s natural life would have been an appropriate sentence, however, 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 determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender. Hence, while balancing the scales of retributive justice and restorative justice, we deem it appropriate to impose upon the appellant-accused, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A, IPC. The conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below for the other offences under IPC and POCSO Act are affirmed. It is needless to say that all the punishments imposed shall run concurrently.

44. Before concluding, we would like to place on record our gratitude and appreciation for the invaluable assistance provided and services rendered by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Marlapalle, appearing for the appellantaccused, appointed through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.”

4.5. This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed from herein above, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Mohd. Firoz (supra), held that the Court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the sentence awarded to the accused to the period of sentence already undergone by him. More so, this would be directly 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 and circumstances of the case, the 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.

4.6 Thus, the analogy drawn, from the precedent laws discussed above, is that even under special laws, wherein a minimum sentence for offences under the provision of the concerned statute is prescribed, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon’ble Court have taken a consistent approach in reducing the sentence of the accused to the period already undergone, even below the minimum sentence prescribed, owing to the special facts and circumstances of each case.

5. This Court, therefore, owing to the special facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the long pendency of the case and the old date of incident, as well as keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant’s conviction under 3(1)(a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 336 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of learned court below be sent back forthwith.