JUDGMENT K.K. Birla, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the conviction of appellant Shabbir under Section 226 I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment to one year. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. for causing Gandasa injuries to his wife Mst. Akhtari (P.W. 4) at about 1.00 a.m. on the night between 4th and 5th of Sept. 1977. 2. According to the prosecution case, there was an altercation between Shabbir appellant and his wife Akhtari on 4.9.77 at about 4.00 p.m. on question of purchasing a transister. There was again an altercation between them at about 1.00 a.m. in the night of 4/5.9.77. At that time the appellant inflicted Gandasa injuries on his wife Mst. Akhtari. 3. In support of its case the prosecution examined Abdul Latif (P.W. 1) Wahid (P.W. 2), Asghar (P.W. 3) and Mst. Akhtari (P.W. 4) about the occurrence. It is borne out from medical evidence that Mst. Akhtari had received incised injuries and the injuries could have been caused by a heavy weapon. Besides the statements of Mst. Akhtari (P.W. 4) there are statements of Abdul Latif (P.W.1) and Asghar (P.W.3) that these injuries were caused to Mst. Akhtari by the appellant. After discussing the evidence learned Sessions Judge had believed the evidence and convicted the appellant as mentioned above. 4. Statements of these witnesses are consistent. They are corroborated by the medical evidence. There does not appear to be any reason to interfere with the finding given by the learned Sessions Judge in this regard. Therefore, I find that the appellant has been rightly convicted. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the incident had taken place in 1977. Conviction had been made in May 1979. It is also contended that the appellant had remained in Jail for about 40 days after conviction and for more than two months during investigation. In view of above circumstances and also the fact that the injuries were caused on account of altercation between husband and wife and on account of heat generated on the spur of moment, I think that the ends of justice will be met by reducing his sentence to the imprisonment already undergone. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant is maintained. His sentence is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone. He is on bail. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant is maintained. His sentence is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.