PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in sessions case No. 14/83 convicting the accused under section 304 part II I. P. C. and sentenced him to three years R. I. , this appeal is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also verbally canvassed before me.
(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. On reappreciation of the evidence, I find that the findings as given by the learned Sessions Judge are correct and are made on due appreciation of the evidence and required no interference, the same are therefore, confirmed. However, Shri Manish Shisodia contended that the accused persons are on bail for last 17 years and to his knowledge, no repetition of any offence committed by the accused is known. The accused has led peaceful life of ordinary citizen and it would be extremely harsh to put him back in jail after having enjoyed liberty of citizenship peacefully and legally for 17 years or more. It was contended by the learned counsel that no fruitful purpose will be served by putting the accused in jail now after 17 years and it may adversely affect the career and conduct of the accused, it may create bitterness in the mind of the accused against the persons who were assaulted by him 20 years ago. There is considerable force made by the learned counsel. Criminal jurisprudence provides punishment as a source of penalty and at the same time, it is aimed according to criminal jurisprudence to correct the criminal concept of using punishment as a correctional measure has gained ground considerably in the past century and several jail reforms have been effected to implement this concept of jurisprudence. In a case where the sentence of imprisonment imposed as punishment is suspended for a period of more than 17 years by operation of the provisions of law, the correctional part is wholly taken away. The punitive aspect also used significant to a great extent as penalty is felt and is effected only if administered immediately on commission of the crime. In this case, the accused was in custody and has thus suffered the agony of being imprisoned for a crime committed by him. The penal effect or the punitive effect of sentence being awarded as punishment was thus partially experienced by the accused in the present case. He has thereafter for 17 years remained at liberty as aforesaid. No crime is reported to have been committed by him during this period. There is no question of any correctional affect being needed on the accused after passage of 17 years, none of the purpose for which the punishment is granted is therefore, likely to be fulfilled by requiring the accused to undergo the sentence remaining. I therefore, think it just and proper to allow the appeal partly and reduce the sentence to that already undergone maintaining the order of conviction as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. In the result, the appeal succeeds partly and is allowed partly. The sentence as inflicted by the learned Sessions Judge is reduced to that of already undergone. The accused has already submitted bail bonds and the same are hereby cancelled. . ;