1. Appellant has in this appeal challenged his conviction under section 324 Indian Penal Code by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 72/91 judgment dated 2.11.1995. The appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. 2. The appellant was tried along with two others Vahid Khan and Gabbar. Whereas appellant was charged under section 307 IPC, the two others were charged under section 307/34 IPC. The allegations were that on 8.8.1990 when complainant Hitendra Rathore on a cycle was going to a nearby temple, the three accused stopped him and appellant inflicted two injuries on his back by a knife. The injuries have been found as simple by the doctor and it is on this ground that learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant from a charge under section 307 IPC and instead has convicted under section 324 IPC. The other co-accused were acquitted by the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has at the bar argued only on the point of sentence praying that the appellant has remained in custody for about 30 days and in the circumstances of the case, the period already undergone by the appellant appears enough to meet the ends of justice and, therefore, sentence be accordingly reduced. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that sentence of fine be imposed in the event sentence of imprisonment is reduced. On perusal of the records it is found that two days prior to the date of incident there was exchange of hot words between complainant Hitendra Rathore and appellant when the complainant had tried to rescue his friend who was being assaulted by appellant and his colleagues. Therefore, it appears that on the day of incident the appellant and his two colleagues had tried to teach a lesson to the complainant for his unwarranted intervention two days back. The injuries found on the back of victim are simple in nature. It has to be noticed that the incident dates back to August, 1990 and it is almost 9 years that the appellant has been suffering the mental and financial torture of the prolonged litigation. Apart from the suffering on account of prolonged trial at different stages, the appellant has also remained in custody for a period of 30 days. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, it would not be proper to send appellant back to jail. Apart from the suffering on account of prolonged trial at different stages, the appellant has also remained in custody for a period of 30 days. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, it would not be proper to send appellant back to jail. The period of his detention for about 30 days appears enough to meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under section 324 IPC is affirmed. However his sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for three years is altered to period already undergone. In the circumstances it does not appear necessary to impose sentence of fine also.