JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar dated 20-12-1974 whereby he convicted the accused- appellant under sections 326, 325, 324 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him at under : under section 326 I.P.C. to suffer 5 years' R.I. under section 325 I P.C. to suffer 3 years' R I. under section 324 I.P.C. to suffer 2 years' R.I. under section 323 I.P.C. to suffer 2 year's R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was acquitted of the charge under section 307 I.P.C. 2. Tersely speaking the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that on 18-10-1974 at 5 a.m. Devi Lal was grazing his cattle near the Medh of 'Tik Wala' field along with his brother Ramchandra. The accused appeared all of a sudden on the scene of occurrence and protested against grazing of the cattle by the complainant. Ramchandra refused to oblige him and the accused inflicted 5 farsi blows on the person of Ramchandra Devilal intervened but he was also not spared. During the course of incident Ramchardra sustained 5 injuries and Devilal sustained 18 injuries at the hands of the accused. The First Information Report Ex P/1 was lodged at the Police Station Aswanar on the same day at about 7 a.m. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is about 3 miles. Two persons Babulal PW 3 and Udailal PW 4 were named as eye-witnesses in the First Information Report Ex. P/1. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused under Sec 326, 325, 324 and 323 I.P.C. and the accused was ultimately tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined 2 witnesses in support of their case. PW 1 Devilal and PW. 2 Ramchandra are the injured persons and PW 3 Babulal and PW. 4 Udailal are neighbours of the place where the occurrence took place. Dr. G.D. Sharma PW. 7 was examined to prove the injuries sustained by Ramchandra and Devilal. The injury reports of Ramchardra and Devilal are Ex P/7 and P/8 respectively and their X-ray reports are Ex P/7 A and Ex. P/8 A respectively. The accused examined only one witness in defence. 3. The ]earned Addl. Dr. G.D. Sharma PW. 7 was examined to prove the injuries sustained by Ramchandra and Devilal. The injury reports of Ramchardra and Devilal are Ex P/7 and P/8 respectively and their X-ray reports are Ex P/7 A and Ex. P/8 A respectively. The accused examined only one witness in defence. 3. The ]earned Addl. Sessions Judge of after taking into consideration the probability of the case and infirmities appearing in the statements of the witnesses, held the statement of the two injured witnesses and two others witnesses reliable. Placing reliance upon the statements of all the four witnesses referred above, corroborated by the First Information Report and medical testimony, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above. 4. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has read before me the statements of PW 1 Devilal and PW. 2 Ramchandra. Both of them have made consistent statements. There is nothing in their statements on the basis of which the veracity of their statements can be doubted. They have been cross-examined at length but they stood very well at their cross examination. Their statements further stand corroborated by the injury reports Ex. P/7 & Ex. P/8 & X-Ray reports Ex. P/7A & Ex P/8A. The other two witnesses PW 3 Babulal and PW. Udailal have made similar statements as made by the injured persons. There is no reason for them to falsely implicate the accused. Besides that, the first information report of the occurrence was lodged within the short time in which the names of witnesses have been given and the entire prosecution story has been described in details which leads considerable support to the prosecution case. I find no reason to reverse the finding of fact arrived at by the trial court who had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses in witness-box. The conviction of the accused appellant under sections 326, 325, 324, 323 I.P.C. is, therefore upheld. 5. Now remains the question of sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1974. The accused is in jail since 22.10.1974. Pendency of criminal proceeding for so long a time is bound to burden the accused with considerable expenses agony. Hanging of Damoclean sword does obstruct the continuity of life. 5. Now remains the question of sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1974. The accused is in jail since 22.10.1974. Pendency of criminal proceeding for so long a time is bound to burden the accused with considerable expenses agony. Hanging of Damoclean sword does obstruct the continuity of life. The accused appellant is cultivator by profession and his continued in jail for a long period in the company of hardened criminals, who might happened to be the inmates of jail, is not likely to have any reformatory effect upon the accused appellant, rather it may attract him to a life of crime. The. occurrence appears to be an offshoot of trifling affair. No doubt the accused inflicted a number of blows but taking the conspectus of the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the accused-appellant is reduced. 6. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the order of the trial court convicting the accused is upheld but his sentence under Section 326 IPC is reduced from 5 years' rigorous imprisonment to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellant under sections 325, 324 & 323 IPC are maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment of the accused-appellant are ordered to run concurrently. It is however, made clear that the accused appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 CrPC 1973 & the period of detention undergone by him during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the term of his imprisonment awarded by this Court.Appeal partly allowed. *******