ORDER : 1. The appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused appellants may kindly be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.” 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1986 and the present criminal appeal has been pending since the year 1992. 3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.08.1992 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Court, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 16/1992 whereby the accused appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 I.P.C., Section 148 I.P.C. and Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and were each awarded a sentence of 6 years R.I., 2 years R.I. and 6 months S.I. respectively, with the direction that the sentences were to run concurrently. 4. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the record are that on 15.01.1986, Shri Rupla filed a report at Police Station Parsola stating therein that on 14.01.1986, at about 2/2:30 p.m. while Bheema, the deceased victim, his wife Pemli, and their son Devji were working in their fields, the accused appellants, armed with lathis, entered their fields and assaulted them, as a result of which Bheema died, and his wife and son sustained injuries. And that, the accused appellants removed and took Pemli’s jewellery, and lifted them (deceased Bheema as well as Pemli and Devji) and placed them on the cot in the verandah. And that, they subsequently entered their home and stole ornaments, a radio, a gun, among other things which were kept inside a chest in the victims’ home. And that, on the basis of such a report, an F.I.R. was registered by the S.H.O. for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 454, 394 and 323/149 I.P.C. against the accused appellants. The police authorities investigated the alleged crime scene, created a Panchnama report and post-mortem of the body was conducted. And that, the accused appellants denied the charges so framed against them, and sought trial, during the course of which, 15 prosecution witnesses were produced and examined. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sentence awarded to the appellants (Babaria, Alia and Panchia) was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 20.11.1992 in S.B. Criminal Misc. And that, the accused appellants denied the charges so framed against them, and sought trial, during the course of which, 15 prosecution witnesses were produced and examined. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sentence awarded to the appellants (Babaria, Alia and Panchia) was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 20.11.1992 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 362/1992. As per learned counsel and as mentioned in the present appeal, although appellants, namely, Bheria and Tejia have not sought suspension of sentence, but after serving out the sentence, as awarded to them by the learned court below, they were released. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there were 7 culprits in total, one of which was not identifiable, one of which (accused Ratna) was a juvenile at the relevant time, and the remaining 5 are the present appellants. And that, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and Section 148 I.P.C. is bad in the eye of law, as it was not ascertained beyond all reasonable doubts as to which of the 7 aforementioned persons had inflicted which injury on the deceased victim, nor has the fatal blow been attributed to either of them. And that, the same is evident from the testimony of P.W. 1 – Pemli, the wife of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned Court below has also disbelieved the version of the prosecution that the incident occurred with the intention of stealing ornaments, and that the motive behind the occurrence of the incidents was not determinable either, as the chest from which the deceased’s wife claimed stealing of jewellery, was fastened with a lock, and the same was unbroken, as is corroborated from the statement of the investigating officer. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the evidence of the witnesses against the appellants is also weak and cannot be relied upon, as their testimonies are rife with contradictions. And that, the eyewitness, P.W. 9 Khema, and subsequently other witnesses also turned hostile. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the evidence of the witnesses against the appellants is also weak and cannot be relied upon, as their testimonies are rife with contradictions. And that, the eyewitness, P.W. 9 Khema, and subsequently other witnesses also turned hostile. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that for the aforementioned reasons, neither are there any credible witnesses nor any evidence which point towards the culpability of the accused appellants herein beyond all reasonable doubts, and therefore at best, a case under Section 325 I.P.C. can be made out against the appellants, and that the conviction under section 304 Part II I.P.C. is not sustainable. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, also makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellants may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same and submits that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment after a thorough perusal of the record and after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case. 13. This Court, at the outset finds that the grounds of conviction of the appellants as taken by the learned Trial Court, as laid out before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants, and as is evident from the record, call into question the version of the prosecution. 14. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court derives strength from the fact that the testimonies of the witnesses suffer from contradictions and inconsistencies. 14.1 The learned Trial Court has also observed that the concerned police authorities have also given varying testimony, all of which further creates a shadow of doubt on the version of the prosecution. 15. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court, while recording observations to the effect that the testimony of the doctor, Dr. G. C. Shukla, P.W. 11 confirmed that the death of the deceased victim occurred at the time as averred by prosecution, and was occurred due to suffering blows to his body. Eye witness P.W. 9 Khema, and other key witnesses P.W. 3 Rupa and P.W. 5 Nathia turned hostile. G. C. Shukla, P.W. 11 confirmed that the death of the deceased victim occurred at the time as averred by prosecution, and was occurred due to suffering blows to his body. Eye witness P.W. 9 Khema, and other key witnesses P.W. 3 Rupa and P.W. 5 Nathia turned hostile. 15.1 However, the same does not help in ascertaining as to which of the appellants herein, if at all, were responsible for inflicting the fatal blow to the deceased, or whether the deceased victim passed away as a consequence of falling on the ground and hitting his head. 15.2 The learned Trial Court has also recorded the finding that the averment made by the appellants to the effect that the deceased, Bheema was allegedly involved in illicit relations with one Deva’s wife Jamna and that the said Deva, after finding out about the same, confronted Bheema and that they exchanged blows, and that the same could be the reason for some of the injuries found on the body of the deceased victim, which was put forth by two witnesses produced by the appellants during trial, who stated that the said issue was also brought before the concerned Panchayat, is not believable. 16. Nonetheless, this Court finds that although the learned Trial Court has delved deep into the facts and circumstances surrounding the present case, and dealt with the testimonies of the witnesses at length, in convicting the present appellants under Section 304 Part II I.P.C., it has gone beyond the evidence placed on record before it, as the same has not been proven beyond all reasonable doubts. And that, in such case the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The record only reveals that a fight broke out between 7 persons, and Bheema, his wife and son, as already discussed above and as a consequence of which Bheema died. 17. 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. 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…” 18. This Court, after taking into taking into due consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, that the incident is of the year 1986, and in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants, keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, partly allows the present appeal . Accordingly, while maintaining the appellants’ conviction under Section 304 Part II I.P.C., Section 148 I.P.C. and Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C., as above, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to them to the period already undergone by them. The appellants (Babaria, Alia and Panchia) are on bail, in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 20.11.1992 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 362/1992. (in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 327/1992) whereby the sentenced awarded to them was suspended. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged. However, as per learned counsel for the appellants, since appellants Bheria and Tejia have been released, after serving out the period of sentence, there is no need now to pass any order regarding reduction of the period of their sentence to the period already undergone. 19. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.