JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 21, 1975 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, whereby he convicted the appellant Patashiya under section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Tersely speaking the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial, is that on 6th December, 1974 the appellant was grazing his she-goats near the field of Shivlal. Some of the she-goats strayed into the field of Shivlal who drove them out and reprimanded the accused. The accused got infuriated and inflicted farsi blows on the head and other parts of the body of Shivlal, as a result of which he sustained six injuries, out of which two were found to be grievous. The first information report of this occurrence was lodged at the police station Rajpur on. the same day at about. 1.30 p. m. The police after usual investigation, submitted a challan against the accused under section 307 I.P.C. and he was ultimately tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 3 witnesses in support of their case. The accused denied his complicity in the crime but he did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statements of P.W. 1 Shivlal injured corroborated by the statements of two eye-witnesses P.W. 3 Gopi and P.W. 6 Bhuwana and medical evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. Mohan Chand, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. 3. Looking to the nature of the injuries and the statements of P.W. 2 Dr. Mohan Chandra and P.W. 3 Dr. Gopal Dutt Sharma as well as x-ray reports Ex. P.3 and Ex.P 4 showing the fracture of right occipital parietal bone of skull of Shivlal, it cannot be contended that whosoever inflicted the injuries on the person of Shivlal intended to cause the death of Shivlal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has pointed out following infirmities in the prosecution: case. P.3 and Ex.P 4 showing the fracture of right occipital parietal bone of skull of Shivlal, it cannot be contended that whosoever inflicted the injuries on the person of Shivlal intended to cause the death of Shivlal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has pointed out following infirmities in the prosecution: case. (i) that only interested witnesses have been examined in support of the prosecution case, (ii ) that two independent witnesses, namely, Chhitar and Bhalla who were also on the scene of occurrence have been suppressed by the prosecution and as such an adverse inference should be drawn against the truthfulness of the prosecution story. (iii) that there are material contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses which make their presence on the scene of occurrence doubtful and if the statements of these two witnesses Gopi and and Bhuwana are excluded then remains the solitary statement of Shivlal which in itself cannot be held to be sufficient, to convict the accused as the witness was on inimical terms with the accused. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 5. The first information report Ex. P. 6 in the case can be said to have been lodged within a short time of the occurrence, keeping in view the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence which is about six miles. Some time must have been spent by the eye-witnesses in providing the first aid to the injured. The prompt filing of the first information report containing the name of the accused and also of the two eye witnesses viz Gopi and Bhuwana and a detailed description of the occurrence lends considerable support to the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 6. P.W. 1 Shivlal stated that the accused was grazing his she-goats in his field. He drove them out and reprimanded the accused but instead of expressing regret he inflicted injuries on his person one after another with farsi. More or less the same is the statement of P. W. 6 Bhuwana and P. W. 5 Gopi. These witnesses have been cross-examined in detail but inspite of lengthy cross-examination nothing has appeared in their statements on the basis of which the veracity of their statement can be doubted. Minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses are simply suggestive of the fact that the witnesses were not tutored. These witnesses have been cross-examined in detail but inspite of lengthy cross-examination nothing has appeared in their statements on the basis of which the veracity of their statement can be doubted. Minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses are simply suggestive of the fact that the witnesses were not tutored. The two eye-witnesses are the neighboured of the place of occurrence and their presence on the scene of occurrence was natural and there is nothing so disbelieve their statements. Their statements further find corroboration from the statement of P. W. 2 Dr. Mohan Chandra and P. W. 3 Dr. G. D. Sharma and the injury report and X-ray report Ex. P. 3 and Ex. P. 4 respectively. As regards "non-examination of two witnesses, namely, Chhitar and Bhalla it would suffice to say that according to the learned trial court Chhitar was not an eye-witness of the occurrence. It is well known that the villagers are reluctant lo give evidence because they are afraid that given evidence might invite the serious risks. It cannot be said, that Bhalla is a witness of the type who would have unfolded the prosecution story not disclosed by any other person. Admittedly Bhalla came to the scenes of occurrence after the quarrel had started and as such his non-examination cannot be considered to be an infirmity of the type on the basis of which statement of other witnesses can be brushed aside. In such cases the question which remains before the court is whether the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution can be said to be reliable and conviction can be based on their testimony or not. The trial court who had advantage seeing the witnesses in the witness box has for good and sufficient reasons placed reliance on their testimony I find no reason to hold otherwise. The conviction of the accused-appellant under section 307 L P. C. is upheld. 7. Now remains the question of sentence. It is urged that according to the accused, he was a boy of 17 years of age at. the time when his statement was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge under section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for for the appellant has urged that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought not to have rejected the age of the accused on the basis of his own estimate. the time when his statement was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge under section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for for the appellant has urged that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought not to have rejected the age of the accused on the basis of his own estimate. This submission of the learned counsel finds support from the decision of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Raisul appellant v. Slate of U. P., AIR 1977 SC 1822 . 8. The occurrence is of the year 1974. The accused had been facing trial regularly. The continuance of criminal proceedings for a period of more then three years must caused considerable expenses and mental worry to the appellant. Looking to the age of the-accused and fact that the incident is an offshoot of the trifling affair, and it was not the result of a premeditated action, it would not be in the interest of justice to keep the accused who is below 21 years of age in jail for a longer term in the company of. hardened criminals who might happen to be the inmates of jail. His prolonged continuance in jail instead of reforming him is likely to divert him towards the life of crime which will neither be in his interest nor in the general interest of society. Keeping in view the modern reformative trend in criminology I am of the view that if. would meet the ends of justice, if the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant is reduced. 9. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.6 The conviction of the accused appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. is maintained but his sentence is reduced from four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- to three years' rigorours imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default of payment of fine the appellant shall, further under go rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. It is, however, made clear that the accused-appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 428 Cr.P.C. and the period of detention undergone by him during inquiry, investigation o; trial shall be set off against the term of his sentence awarded by this court. *******