AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 16.11.2018 passed by the High Court by which the criminal appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellants have filed these appeals.
The appellants were tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge on 31.03.2004 and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years under Sections 324/34 of the RPC with a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment, the accused would suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year.
Notice was issued by this Court on 22.02.2019 only on the quantum of sentence.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident took place in the year 1994. Appellant No.1 is 60 years of age and appellant No.2 is 82 years of age and also suffering from serious Glaucoma. He further submits that the appellants are agriculturists and have no previous criminal history and a submission was also made before the High Court to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act which was not acceded to by the High Court.
It is further relevant to note that the High Court has reduced the sentence from three years to one year.
Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that the incident took place in the year 1994 and appellant No.2 is suffering from Glaucoma. He further submits that the appellants have undergone three months' custody.
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in upholding the conviction and releasing the appellants on the sentence already undergone. We do so accordingly.
The criminal appeals are accordingly disposed of.