JUDGMENT Appellant Mohd. Zahid alias Dulha Bhai, stands convicted under section 324. IPC with sentences of RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, vide impugned judgment dated 2.9.1988, passed by Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No. 126/85. Police Narsinghpur, after completing the investigation of the case, registered at Crime No. 233/84, charge-sheeted as many as three accused persons including the appellant for the commission of the offences punishable under section 307 read with section 34, IPC on the accusation of their having attempted at the life of complainant Madan on 18.6.1984. On medical examination injured Madan was found to have sustained two incised wounds and one abrasion, as detailed in his injury report (Ex. P-2). The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses, whereas the accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence. On a close scrutiny of the evidence, led by the prosecution, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of causing simple hurt by means of a knife on injured Madan. On considering the facts of the case in its entirety, the trial Court held that the above act of the appellant, in causing injury to Madan, did not amount to the offence of attempt to commit his murder, punishable under section 307, IPC and therefore, while acquitting him of the charge under section 307, IPC, convicted him under section 324, IPC. Shri Ahadulla Usmani, the learned counsel for the appellant, did not challenge the appellant's conviction under section 324, IPC and confined his submissions on the question of sentence alone. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the appellant's conviction under section 324, IPC but even then for satisfying about the correctness of the findings, recorded by the trial Court, holding the appellant guilty, this Court has gone through the evidence on record in general and that of (PW 1), Santosh Kumar, (PW 3) Madan and (PW 5) Jagdish in particular. On a re-recitation of their evidence, this Court is satisfied that the trial Court has rightly acted upon their cogent and reliable evidence in holding the appellant guilty of commission of the offence, punishable under section 324, IPC thus the appellant's conviction does not call for any interference in this appeal. On a re-recitation of their evidence, this Court is satisfied that the trial Court has rightly acted upon their cogent and reliable evidence in holding the appellant guilty of commission of the offence, punishable under section 324, IPC thus the appellant's conviction does not call for any interference in this appeal. As for the sentence, the trial Court has awarded sentences of RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/- on the appellant's conviction under section 324, IPC. Unfortunate incident of assault on injured complainant Madan took place on 18.6.1984 and a period of more than 14 years has already elapsed since then. In the charge sheet, filed against the accused persons in the year 1984, the appellant was shown to be aged 44 years and as such now he is nearing 60. The appellant is reported to have remained in jail for a period of about one month during trial. The appellant, in addition, has also undergone mental agony of facing these protracted proceedings for a period of about 14 years in two Courts. The appellant was released on bail, in the year 1988, in pursuance to this Court order dt. 14.9.88 and since then is on bail for the last about 10 years. Out of the three injuries, found on the person of injured Madan, two were on his non-vital parts of body i.e. right index finger and right elbow whereas the third one was on his abdominal region. On a commulative consideration of the above mentioned broad features of the case this Court is of the opinion that it would be rather harsh to send the appellant back to jail, for serving out the balance of the jail sentence, awarded by the trial Court, at this distance of time after more than a decade of the commission of the offence in the year 1984 and the jail sentence, already undergone by the appellant, alongwith the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court would be the sufficient punishment for the offence, found proved against the appellant, under section 324, IrC and would meet the ends of justice. For the foregoing reasons the appeal, filed by appellant Mohd. Zahid alias Dulha against his conviction and sentences, is allowed in part. Appellant's conviction under section 324, IPC and sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- are hereby affirmed. For the foregoing reasons the appeal, filed by appellant Mohd. Zahid alias Dulha against his conviction and sentences, is allowed in part. Appellant's conviction under section 324, IPC and sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- are hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of RI for 2 years, awarded by the trial Court, for the reasons mentioned here-in-above, is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.