JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated 14-2-1977 in a trial for the offence under Section 302, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge held appellant Subhash Chandra guilty for the offence under Section 323, IPC and sentenced him to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Narendra Kumar was held guilty for the offences under Sections 325 and 323, IPC and sentenced to four year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 100/-, in default, to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the first count and to three month's imprisonment for the second count. 2. At the commencement of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he does not press the appeal filed on behalf of Subhash Chandra, as he has already suffered the sentence awarded to him. Regarding appellant Narendra Kumar the submission of the learned counsel is that he is invalid person and in view of the circumstances of the case the punishment awarded to him is excessive. He prayed that a lenient view may be taken in the case. 3. The motive for commission of the crime, as given by the prosecution, was dispute relating to the property of the deceased, which the appellant Narendra Kumar claimed as being the real nephew of the deceased. The prosecution case is that Narendra Kumar appellant being annoyed by the will of the deceased in favour of his sister son caused injuries with fist blows to the deceased Ramji Lal immediately after his return from the registration office after getting the will registered. The age of Ramjilal was 90 years. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, has noted only abrasions and swelling as external injuries. It was only on dissection of the dead body that it was detected that the liver was damaged resulting in the death of Ramjilal. The doctor has specifically stated that the advanced age of Ramjilal and his physical condition had aggravated his death on account of this type of injuries. These circumstances coupled with the physical condition of the appellant Narendra Kumar, who according to the prosecution case itself has deformity in his both the legs and can move only by crawling, calls for interference in his sentence and a lenient view is desirable. The appellant had remained in custody so far for a period of more than five months. These circumstances coupled with the physical condition of the appellant Narendra Kumar, who according to the prosecution case itself has deformity in his both the legs and can move only by crawling, calls for interference in his sentence and a lenient view is desirable. The appellant had remained in custody so far for a period of more than five months. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that it would not be proper to send this invalid man behind the bars after a lapse of a period of five years and the ends of justice would meet if his sentences are reduced to the period he had remained in custody so far with an increase in the amount of fine. 4. Consequently the appeal of Subhash Chandra is dismissed, as not pressed. The appeal of Narendra Kumar is partly allowed. His convictions for the offences under Sections 325 and 323. IPC., is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 325 IPC., is reduced to the period he had remained in custody so far. The amount of fine of Rs. 100/- is increased to Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence under Section 323, IPC, is maintained. The appellant has already suffered the sentence awarded for this charge. 5. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant Narendra Kumar, he is allowed two months' time to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court.Order accordingly. *******