JUDGMENT 1. - By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 10.12.1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh at Suratgarh Camp in Sessions Case No. 70/80 convicting the accused persons, as under : (1) Nanu, Under Section 342 IPC To 6 months S.I. (2) Pania, (3) Ram Swaroop (4) Idan Under Section 342 IPC To 6 months S.I. Under Section 323 IPC To 6 months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine to further S.I. of 2 months. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal stated briefly are that on 3.5.1982 a First Information Report No. 58/82 was registered on the basis of complaint made by Gango Bai W/o Kartar Singh in Police Station Pilibanga. It was alleged in the first information report that on 2.5.1982 at about 4.00 p.m. there was exchange of words between Jogender and Harji. Jogender came home at about 7.30 in the evening when the complainant and other members of her family were in house. The accused persons came there and called Kartar Singh out of the house. When Kartar Singh went out of the house he was taken to accused persons in front of his house and Sucha Singh who was son of complainant tried to go away, he was fired on by them and due to the gun fire Sucha Singh died. On the basis of this complaint, investigation was made and the present appellants were tried for offence punishable under section 302/149, 323, 342, 147 & 148 IPC and were duly committed sessions trial. 3. On appreciation of the evidence on record the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that no case under sections 302, 149 or 1471PC is made out against the accused persons and he, therefore, proceeded to acquit. However, accepting the same set of evidence the learned Judge convicted the accused for offence under section 342 of the IPC and Section 323 to the accused Idan only as mentioned above. It is this order of conviction which is assailed in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the entire record of the case and re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. It is this order of conviction which is assailed in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the entire record of the case and re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. There is no appeal against the acquittal under sections 302 & 149 IPC by the State. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge in relation to lack of evidence of any of the offences under sections 302, 149, 147 IPC has to be, therefore, accepted as correct. 5. It will be seen that the evidence was found insufficient by learned trial Court for recording conviction under section 147 IPC. It provides for punishment to those who are members of unlawful assembly and are guilty of parity. The finding of necessity means that there was no use of force by any of the accused persons. 6. The finding that none of them is guilty of murder speaks of lack of evidence of murder that leaves the question of correctness of conviction under section 342 which punishes the person guilty of wrongful confinement as defined under section 340 of the IPC, which reads as under : 340. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person. 7. There is no evidence on record that any such limits were existing within which Kartar Singh was wrongfully confined. Even if the entire prosecution evidence is accepted how Kartar Singh was called out of his house and was produced before the accused persons when Sucha Singh tried to run away and it is alleged that gun was fired on him. Kartar Singh himself has also stated that he was called by the accused persons but he does not describe in any manner the time allegedly given to him. In such circumstances the conviction is unsustainable in law. The same is liable to be set aside. 8. In so far the conviction of life imprisonment under section 323 is concerned the evidence of Kartar Singh has been rightly accepted and the conviction is rightly recorded. I see no reason to interfere with the same. In such circumstances the conviction is unsustainable in law. The same is liable to be set aside. 8. In so far the conviction of life imprisonment under section 323 is concerned the evidence of Kartar Singh has been rightly accepted and the conviction is rightly recorded. I see no reason to interfere with the same. However, the accused is on bail for last 16 years and it would be harsh and unjust in the circumstances if he required to go in jail after 16 years of liberty. Delay give rise to further animosity between the parties and may lead to disturb inputs. Interest of justice would be met in the present case if the conviction is set aside. The accused-Idan Singh under section 323 is maintained, his sentence is reduced to already undergone by him during the pendency of the trial and investigation.In the result the appeal partly succeeds and is allowed partly. The order of conviction under section 342 in relation to all accused persons is set aside. The conviction of the accused-Idan under section 323 IPC is maintained. His sentence is reduced to already undergone as aforesaid.Appeal partly allowed. *******