- (1.) THE instant appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.5.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Karnal whereby Bhagwan Dass, appellant has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), extracted hereinbelow: - JUDGEMENT_562_LAWS(P&H)3_20141.htm Counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not assail the findings recorded by the trial court holding Bhagwan Dass appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 304 Part I IPC but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence awarded may be reduced to the period already undergone.
(2.) COUNSEL submits that criminal proceedings were initiated against 09 persons including 02 ladies by lodging FIR No. 565 dated 21.10.1999 in regard to murder of Nirmal Singh and injuries to others in a Melee due to some dispute of land. The accused were charged for committing offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 506 IPC and on conclusion of trial, the remaining accused were acquitted of the offence and the present appellant was held guilty for the aforesaid offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced. Counsel has submitted that the appellant faced trauma of criminal proceedings for a serious offence under Section 302 IPC for about five years till the decision by the trial court wherein he was held guilty for offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. The proceedings remained pending before this Court in appeal for the last more than 10 years. The appellant's age, in the custody certificate on record, is described to be 78 years. He has already under gone actual custody for a period of 03 years, 06 months and 02 days. It is argued that keeping in view the period during which the appellant suffered trauma of criminal proceedings coupled with the actual custody suffered by him, the substantive sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
(3.) COUNSEL for the State has not disputed factual assertions but opposed the prayer. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The appellant remained in custody throughout during trial after his arrest on 4.11.1999. He faced trauma of criminal proceedings for the last more than 14 years. There is nothing on record to suggest the he ever created any impediment in administration of criminal justice or delay in conclusion of proceedings is attributable to him. He has already undergone custody for a period of 03 years, 06 months and 02 days. In the custody certificate dated 3.11.2011, he is stated to be aged about 78 years meaning thereby that he is more than 80 years of age as of now. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case coupled with the age of the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be served if substantive sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 304 Part I IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. The appeal stands disposed of with modification in the aforesaid terms.;