JUDGMENT : 1. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a copy of the report dated 30.08.2023 furnished by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Khairthal-Tijara for perusal of this Court. 2. The report is taken on record. 3. This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant (for brevity “the appellant”) against the judgment dated 10.03.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.20/1988: State of Rajasthan versus Gurudayal Singh & Anr. whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- (i). under Section 304 Part II IPC:-4 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default thereof, 5 months’ rigorous imprisonment. 4. The relevant facts in brief are that a written report dated 05.03.1988 (Exhibit-P-6) came to be lodged by Shri Pritam Singh (PW-3) with the Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar wherein, it was alleged that on that very day at about 8:00 PM, Rajendra Singh was inflicted with a stab wound on his chest by the appellant with a knife whereupon, an FIR No.34/1988 (Exhibit-P-7) came to be lodged on 06.03.1988. Initially, the case was registered under Section 324/34 IPC; but, on death of Rajendra Singh during the course of investigation, it was converted under Section 302/34 IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant and a co-accused under Section 302/34 IPC. After the case was committed to the learned trial Court for trial, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 5. Eschewing the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is about 35 years old, the appellant, who is aged about 83 years as on date, was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC acquitting him from the charge under Section 302/34 IPC. She, therefore, prays that while maintaining the conviction, the appellant’s sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant has been facing trauma of pendency of this criminal case for last about 35 and a half years. She, therefore, prays that while maintaining the conviction, the appellant’s sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant has been facing trauma of pendency of this criminal case for last about 35 and a half years. As per the arrest memo (Exhibit-P-17), age of the appellant on 13.03.1988 was 43 years which, as on date, comes to about 80 years. As per the report dated 09.08.2020 furnished by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Bhiwadi, the appellant was aged, on that day, based on his Aadhar Card and Ration Card, about 80 years which, as on today, comes to about 83 years. The appellant has already remained in custody for a period of two months and nineteen days as per the custody certificate dated 30.08.2023 issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Alwar appended with the report dated 30.08.2023 furnished by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Khairthal-Tijara. 9. Their Lordships have held in the cases of, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012: (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678 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..." 10. Their Lordships, have held in case of, Panchashila Dada Messhram versus State of Maharashtra: (2009) 17 SCC 81 , as under:- “8. Their Lordships, have held in case of, Panchashila Dada Messhram versus State of Maharashtra: (2009) 17 SCC 81 , as under:- “8. However, as far as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court finds that at the time of incident, the appellant was in advanced stage of her pregnancy and had given birth to a girl child which had expired soon after the birth. The evidence adduced by the prosecution indicates that the husband of the appellant was coming near the bathroom with a cane so as to prevent the deceased from coming out of the bathroom. Such an act is not attributed to the appellant at all. As on today, the appellant is of more than 67 years of age. The record further indicates that the appellant has also a major daughter, who was aged 10 years at the time of the incident and a son. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part II, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the High Court under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.” 11. In view of very advanced age of the appellant, i.e., about 83 years, the period of about 35 and half years for which he has been facing trauma of this criminal case, the severity of sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court and keeping in view the aforementioned precedential laws, this Court deems it just and proper to reduce the sentence awarded to him for the period already undergone, maintaining his conviction. 12. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 10.03.1989, the sentence awarded to him under Section 304 Part II IPC is modified and is reduced to the period already undergone. 12. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 10.03.1989, the sentence awarded to him under Section 304 Part II IPC is modified and is reduced to the period already undergone. However, he shall deposit the fine within a period of two months from today failing which he shall serve the default sentence and trial court shall proceed in accordance with law. 13. Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.