Right to speedy justice under Article 21 justified reducing sentence to period already undergone despite conviction being upheld.

Inordinate delay in criminal proceedings, where not attributable to the accused, may justify reduction of sentence as a mitigating circumstance under Article 21's right to speedy justice, including at the appellate stage. The prosecution evidence proving the occurrence and the appellants' responsibility for the fatal brickbat blows was accepted, and the conviction was sustained. However, because the incident was about 12 years old, the appellants had already undergone more than 13 months' imprisonment, and no dilatory conduct was attributable to them, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in view of the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the proceedings and the period already undergone in custody, the sentence deserved to be reduced while maintaining the conviction.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence establishing the occurrence and the appellants' responsibility for the fatal brickbat blows was accepted, and the defence version was rejected. The Court held that the right to speedy justice is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and extends to the appellate stage as well. At the same time, the Court noted that the benefit of delay cannot be claimed by an accused who himself is responsible for prolonging the proceedings. On the facts, the occurrence was about 12 years old, the appellants had already undergone more than 13 months of imprisonment, and there was no basis to attribute the delay to any dilatory conduct by them.

Conclusion: The conviction was sustained, but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay in criminal proceedings, where not attributable to the accused, may justify reduction of sentence as a mitigating circumstance under the protection of the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

---