JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, dated January 16, 1982, by which he convicted the appellant as under : "Under Section 307 IPC : 4 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo 1 year RI under Section 326 IPC to two years RI and Rs. 200/- fine and in default of payment of fine 4 months RI under Section 324 IPC 9 months RI and under Section 323/34 one month RI. All sentences to run concurrently." 2. This appeal was filed through Shri Dalip Singh, learned counsel for the appellant on 13th April, 1982, along with a bail application. This court granted the bail to the accused appellant but the appellant was so poor that he could not arrange for sureties and is in jail till date. This fact was brought to the notice of the court and the learned counsel for the appellant moved an application for early hearing. It was reported by the registry, that no such file of the appeal is traceable in the office. I, therefore, directed the office to reconstitute the file by taking the memo of appeal from the Government Advocate and this is bow appeal has come up for hearing. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused is in judicial custody since 6th October, 1980. He was released on bail on 9th January, 1981, thereafter he was again taking into custody at the time of delivery of I the judgment i.e. 16th January, 1982, and since then he is in jail. Thus, he is already in jail more than 3 years and 3 months. In this view.of the matter /earned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the conviction of the accused appellant and submits that this court should grant the indulgence to the accused and release him on the sentence already undergone. It is submitted that the accused appellant is a very poor man in as much as he even could not arrange the sureties despite the fact that order granting bail was passed by this court. He is an agriculturist by profession and the dispute also arose because of some land in dispute. 3. I have perused the statements of the witnesses and I am of the opinion, that the accused has been rightly convicted. He is an agriculturist by profession and the dispute also arose because of some land in dispute. 3. I have perused the statements of the witnesses and I am of the opinion, that the accused has been rightly convicted. He was tried along-with his sons who had been given benefit of Section 360 Cr. PC. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of' the opinion that ends of justice would meet in case the sentence passed against the accused appellant is reduced to a period already undergone. 4. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused is maintained but the substantive sentence imposed against the accused appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. He shall be released forthwith not required in any other case.Appeal Partly allowed. *******