JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment dated 5th February, 1996 passed by Shri Gulam Hussain, RHJS, learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, partly allowing the appeal of the accused-appellant. 2. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore by his judgment dated 28.12.1988 has convicted the petitioner for offence Under Sections 326 and 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, for offence Under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and, to undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 323, Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. According to the First Information Report Ex. P/1, on 9.8.1986 Amra was proceeding to the well from his house with the bullocks. When he reached `oran', the accused who was concealing himself behind the `jaal' appeared armed with an axe and inflicted one blown on the head of Amra. Amra wanted to ward off the second blow and for the purpose he raised his hand. The second blow landed on his hand. The alarm raised by Amra brought Moga, Haranta and Bhura on the place of occurrence. The above witnesses rescued Amra. On this report, the Police registered a case for offence under Section 341 and 323, Indian Penal Code. 4. After investigation, a charge-sheet for offence Under Sections 341, 307, 326 and 323, Indian Penal Code was filed. 5. The prosecution produced 9 witnesses. The accused-petitioner produced two witnesses in his defence. Learned Magistrate discussed the testimony of each witness and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded to prove offence Under Sections 326 and 323, Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned appellate court also agreed with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and maintained the conviction. However, the learned appellate court reduced the substantive sentence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the above conviction and sentence on the ground that the petitioner also sustained injuries and learned courts-below did not make any attempt to explain the same. However, the learned appellate court reduced the substantive sentence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the above conviction and sentence on the ground that the petitioner also sustained injuries and learned courts-below did not make any attempt to explain the same. On that basis learned counsel has pleaded right of private defence but I have seen the evidence and I find that the courts below did not commit any error because the prosecution witnesses were not cross examined with regard to the fact whether the accused-petitioner sustained any injury or not. Secondly, the injury report of the petitioner was not produced and exhibited in the case. Regarding the appreciation, I may state that the courts below have not committed any error in recording finding of conviction against the petitioner. The evidence was discussed and appreciated by the courts below and it does not call for interference in this petition. 9. I, therefore, do not find any error in convicting the petitioner for offence under Sections 326 and 323, Indian Penal Code by the courts-below. 10. Regarding sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused has remained in Jail for one month. The case relates to the year 1986 and almost 10 years have elapsed. The conduct of the petitioner has been normal and he is leading a peaceful civil life. No useful purpose will be served if, after such a long period, the accused is again sent to jail. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. 11. I have considered the point. It is correct that the occurrence took place some 10 years ago. To face a criminal case for a period of ten years is a traumatic experience and, looking to the antecedents and conduct of the accused-petitioner it will be just and proper to allow release of the petitioner on the term already undergone. However, the victim may be compensated for the injuries sustained by him.I gain strength for my conclusion from the decisions in Damodar Prasad v. State of Raj., 1989 RCC 105 , Thana Singh and Anr. v. State of Raj., 1986 CrLR (Raj.) 726 , Gurucharan and Ors. v. State of Raj., 1992 CrLR (Raj.) 680 and Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 CrLR (SC) 468 . 12. v. State of Raj., 1986 CrLR (Raj.) 726 , Gurucharan and Ors. v. State of Raj., 1992 CrLR (Raj.) 680 and Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 CrLR (SC) 468 . 12. For the above reasons, this criminal revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused-petitioner is maintained but he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,500/-. The petitioner is allowed two months' time to deposit the amount of fine.After recovery of amount of fine, a sum of Rs. 2000/- be paid to injured Amra Ram son of Habtaji, resident of Anwloj, Jalore.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******