Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Appellants have filed this appeal against judgment dated 12.11.1987, vide which they were convicted for commission of an offence under 463 Section 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. Arguments addressed by counsel for the parties and a perusal of records reveal that at the instance of Rahis Ahmad, FIR No. 39 was recorded against the appellants alongwith one Balli on 7.3.1985. During trial, it was case of the prosecution that on 6.3.1985 at about 10.00 P.M. when Rahis Ahmad and his maternal uncle were taking their meals, they heard cries of a woman. On hearing that noise, Tofik Ahmad came out of his jhuggi and noticed that Balli (who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 664-SB of 1987), was beating his wife mercilessly. She was saved due to intervention of Tofik Ahmad. Balli did not like that intervention and told Tofik Ahmad that he will be taught a lesson. It is further allegation against the appellants that on 7.3.1988 at about 11.00 P.M., when tofik Ahmad went to take water from a tap for taking bath, then all the accused/appellants alongwith Balli appared at the spot. Appellant Ashok Kumar, who was armd with a wooden stick, caused a blow at the head of Tofik Ahmad who fell down and became unconscious. He was taken to hospital, where he was medically examined by a doctor and one injury was declared simple, another was kept under observation and on X-ray, it was found to be a fracture of scalp bone and doctor declared that injury as grievous. 3. All the accused were put to trial under Sections 308/34 IPC. Prosecution led evidence to prove its case. On completion,of prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded, as per law, wherein they pleaded false implication. They also examined Mr. S.S. Rupra, Advocate and Mr. P.N. Gulati, Advocate in their defence as their defence witnesses. Trial Court, after appreciating evidence, as led by both the parties, found the appellants guilty of offence, with which they were charged, convicted and sentenced them accordingly, as found mentioned in first paragraph of this order. 4. It is not necessary to go into further details of this case, as Shri R.S. Sihota. Advocate for the appellants has addressed arguments only regarding quantum of senence. 4. It is not necessary to go into further details of this case, as Shri R.S. Sihota. Advocate for the appellants has addressed arguments only regarding quantum of senence. He has stated that during trial and after their conviction, appellants had remained behind the bars for about two months. He further stated that virtually, there was no motive to commit the offence, as alleged againt the appellants. He further argued that except Ashok Kumar, appellant, all other were empty handed. None of them was having any sharp edged/deadly weapon. After one wooden stick blow by Ashok Kumar, assault was not repeated by the appellants. He has further stated that all the appellants were young and may be due to their young age, they had committed offence, alleged-against them. By stating that they were first offenders, poor persons, are the only brad earners of their family, he prayed that they be given lenient treatment. 5. This prayer has vehemently been opposed by the Counsel for the State. She has stated that already a lenient view has been taken against them by the trial court. In view of their conduct they do not, deserve any further leniency from this Court. She prays that their appeal be dismissed. 6. Purpose of criminal law is to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society and also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Courtin Karamjit Singh v. State, (Delhi Admn.), (2001)9 Supreme Court Cases 161 : [2000(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 7 (SC)], opined as under : "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case : a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society : weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denyig such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation has to be avoided, again within the permisible limits of law." In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587 : [1998(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 718 (SC)], their Lordships of Supreme Court keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 8 Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600 : [2002(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 484 (Pb. & Hry.)]. In that case, in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted, however, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. 9. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467: [1997(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 75.(Pb. & Hry.)]. 10. From the facts of this case it is apparent that sword of conviction had been hanging over the heads of appellants for the last more than 15 years. 9. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467: [1997(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 75.(Pb. & Hry.)]. 10. From the facts of this case it is apparent that sword of conviction had been hanging over the heads of appellants for the last more than 15 years. As per information supplied, they have also remained behind the bars for about two months during their trial and after their conviction. All of them were young, may be, emotional at that time, when the alleged occurrence took place. As per information supplied by counsel for the appellants and not controverted by counsel for the State, appellants were the first offenders and they have not involved in any illegal activity after their conviction. This Court, feels that pendency of this appeal, for the last more than 15 years, had it desired effect of reforming the appellants. By taking note of observations made in the above mentioned judgments and facts of this case, this Court feels that leniency has shown to the appellants. 11. In view of the above, their conviction is upheld, sentence of appellants Shiv Charan and Kishore is reduced to the one already undergone by them. However, since Ashok Kumar appellant had caused grievous injury to Tofik Ahmad, his sentence is ordered to be suspended and he is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year. He shall furnish bond and undertaking before the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the effect that during the period of one year, he shall observe complete peace and live like a disciplined citizen and will not involve in any criminal activity and in case of default, he shall suffer the punishment, as awarded to him by the trial Court. 12. However, keeping in view the opinion of their Lordships of Supreme Court, in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 32, and facts of this case, fine of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed upon Ashok Kumar appellant and he is directed to deposit that amount with the trial court, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10,000/- is imposed upon Ashok Kumar appellant and he is directed to deposit that amount with the trial court, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of that amount, trial court will issue a notice to injured Tofik Ahmad and disburse that amount to him by way of compensation, forthwith.