Judgment Y. R. MEENA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeals directed against the judgment of ieallled Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 4/6/1980 whereby he has convicted the accused for the offences under Section 307 and sentenced him to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 in default of the payment of fine undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment The facts necessary to be noticed in short are that on the intervening night of 1/6/1978 and 2/6/1978 while Ladu was sleeping outside his house, accused tried to strike on his face but as his face was covered by his hands he sustained injury at his hand and the accused ran away. ( 2 ) ON hearing the cries Devi and Anopi and some more persons rushed to the place of incident, Ladu injured then narrated the incident to his mother and father and other persons stating that the accused has caused injury with sharp edged weapon and ran away. The F. I. R. was lodged by one Kana, father of the injured on 2. 6. 1978. In the coming the injured was medically examined in Mahatma Gandhi Govt. Hospital; Bhilwara. Dr. found that there is grievous injuries on the right hand of the injured. The case was registered under Section 307, site plan was prepared. Blood stained soil was taken from the place of incident. The accused was arrested and at his instance Axe was recovered and seized. It was sent to F. S. L. for chemical examination. F. S. L. report reveals that human blood is detected from Kalhaliya, blood strained soil. axe, dhoti and Baniyan, Challan was put up in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, in turn he committed the case to the Sessions Court. ( 3 ) DURING the trial prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313. Considering the material on record and the statements of prosecution witnesses and the statement of accused the learned Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo as aforesaid. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved with the judgment of Trial Court accused appellant filed this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant Shri K. C. Samdharia and learned Public Prosecutor Lalit Kawaria for the State. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved with the judgment of Trial Court accused appellant filed this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant Shri K. C. Samdharia and learned Public Prosecutor Lalit Kawaria for the State. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused appellant has not seriously stressed the appeal on merits. He prays that as the accused appellant is 70 years of the age and he has not committed any other offence except this, therefore, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. Learned Public Prosecutor has not seriously objected this submission of learned counsel for the accused, appellant. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the facts relied on by learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion there is no scope for allowing the appeal on merits. But considering the age of accused appellant and that this is the only offence which he has committed so far, in my opinion no purpose will be served in throwing him in jail at the fag end of his life. He has already remained in custody for more than a month, therefore, I prefer to give him an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate himself in the society. ( 7 ) IN the result the appeal is partly allowed conviction is upheld but sentence is reduced to the period already undergone as the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, I enhance the fine to Rs. 4,000. 00 which should be paid within two months from the date of this order failing b which undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. After the realisation of the fine Rs. 3,000. 00 be paid to the injured out of Rs. 4,000. 00 Appeal allowed partly.