AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 242 wordsT.P. Garg, J.—Heard Sri G.P. Dixit, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned Counsel for the revisionists had, at the outset, not challenged the conviction of the applicants/revisionists on merits. He has prayed for a reduction in sentence only. In view of the said submission, the conviction of the applicants is maintained. Even otherwise, the conviction of the applicants is based upon a sound appreciation of the entire evidence on record and is fully justified. The same is, thus, maintained even on merits.
As regards sentence, suffice will it be to say that the occurrence took place in March, 1980. The applicants were convicted by the trial court in August, 1983 and their appeal was disposed of by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge in May, 1984. The present revision was admitted by this Court in July, 1984. Under the circumstances, during all this period of about 16-17 years, the applicants must have undergone acute mental agony and hardship. It will not, therefore, be proper to send them back to jail. The ends of justice will be amply met if the sentence awarded to them by the courts below is reduced to that already undergone, particularly when they have already remained in custody for a period of about 1 1/2 months each.
Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the sentence of the applicants is reduced to already undergone.