JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Surain Singh was tried in case FIR No. 41 dated 16-4-1986 of P S Padampur by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Sriganganagar camp Srikaranpur, who found him guilty under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of L 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months with a direction that the amount of fine realised from the appellant should be paid to Gurdayal Singh injured. 2. The prosecution story was under-Injured was going on his cycle at about 8 p.m. on 15-4-1986 and at the time the cycle of the appellant collided with the cycle of the injured whereupon injured slapped the appellant. Next morning at about 6. 40 a.m while the injured passed from the lane in front of the house of the appellant, the appellant brought a Gandasi and gave a blow on the head of the injured with the same. The injured was removed to the hospital where he remained admitted for treatment for a long period. The injury found on the person of the injured was 17 c.m. x 2 c.m. cutting the underline bone of the forehead of the injured on its left side. A case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant who was arrested and on whose instance, Gandasi was recovered by the police. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate who committed the case to the court of Sessions where, the appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced as noted above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant Miss Sumitra Sankhla, learned P.P. and have also perused the record of the case. 4. Mr. Garg has not challenged the findings of the learned trial court on merits and, in my view, rightly as the evidence on record fully establishes the prosecution. Mr. Garg has however, submitted that the sentence of imprisonment awarded excessive and calls for the leniency in favour of the appellant. 5. 4. Mr. Garg has not challenged the findings of the learned trial court on merits and, in my view, rightly as the evidence on record fully establishes the prosecution. Mr. Garg has however, submitted that the sentence of imprisonment awarded excessive and calls for the leniency in favour of the appellant. 5. No doubt, the evidence shows that there was hardly any provocation for causing injury, and the fact that the appellant was aged about 60 years at the time of the trial cannot be lost sight of. In this view of the matter, I feel that sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned trial court is excessive and the ends of justice would be met if the same is converted to the period of four years. 6. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, I set aside the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and instead sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and also to pay fine of L 1000/- with a direction that the amount recovered by way of fine shall be paid to the injured and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 7. Except for the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment the appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal partly allowed. *******