Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Appellants have filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 25.11.1988 passed by the trial Court, vide which they were convicted for offences under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian penal Code and following sentences were awarded to them : Jangir Singh under Section 325 IPC RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further RI for two months. Jangir Singh under Section 323 IPC for causing injury to Sukhvinder Kaur Rigorous imprisonment for four months. Jangir Singh under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for causing injury to Joginder Pal Singh Rigorous imprisonment for four months. Jaspal Singh under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further RI for 2 months. Jaspal Singh under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for causing injury to Sukhvinder Kaur R.I. for four months. Jaspal Singh under Section 323 or the Indian Penal Code for causing injury to Joginder Pal Singh RI for four months. 2. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. It is not necessary to go into detailed facts of this case, as counsel for the appellants has addressed arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. 4. Arguments addressed and a perusal of records reveal that it was the case of the prosecution that the appellant had caused injuries to Joginder Pal Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Sukhvinder Kaur, by sharp edged weapons (gandasas), by forcibly entering their house. FIR, was recorded against them for commission of offence under Sections 459, 307, 326, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. They were tried. charge shetted, convicted and sentenced, as found mentioned in para 1 of this order. 5. Counsel for the appellants has argued that appellants were the first offenders. Neither before nor after the alleged incident, they have ever indulged in any illegal activity. He further averred that the sword of conviction had been hanging over their heads for the last more than 14 years, they remained under constant fear of being sent behind the bars at one time or the other, which had a desired effect upon them and they, now are leading the life of a disciplined citizen. He further averred that the sword of conviction had been hanging over their heads for the last more than 14 years, they remained under constant fear of being sent behind the bars at one time or the other, which had a desired effect upon them and they, now are leading the life of a disciplined citizen. He further informed that appellants remained behind the bars for about two months during trial and after their conviction. By stating all these facts, he prayed that their sentence be reduced to the one already undergone. 6. Shri Tarunveer Vashisht, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made by counsel for the appellants. He has stated that guilt of the appellant is proved on record and punishment awarded to them is in proportion to the offence committed by them and he prayed that their appeal be dismissed. 7. 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. 8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamiit 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. 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 : wieghing 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 determent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. 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 determent 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. Denying 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, against within the permissible limits of law." In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998 (1) 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. 9 Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 22002 (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. 10. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chnota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467: [1997(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 75 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 11. In this case, occurrence took place in May, 1974. Trial continued for four years and from the year 1988, this appeal is pending. In this way, it is apparent that sword of conviction continued to hang over the heads of the appellants, as per information supplied, it has its desired effect of making them disciplined citizens. The appellant remained behind the bars for about two months during trial and after their conviction. In this way, it is apparent that sword of conviction continued to hang over the heads of the appellants, as per information supplied, it has its desired effect of making them disciplined citizens. The appellant remained behind the bars for about two months during trial and after their conviction. Appellants and the injured are co-villagers and if at this stage, appellants are sent behind the bars, it will, instead of decreasing, rather will increase acrimony between the families and will be detrimental to the peace and harmony in the village. 12. Keeping in view the facts of this case and ratio of judgments mentioned above, conviction of appellants is upheld, but, sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by the appellants. 13. However, keeping in view the opinion of their Lordships of Supreme Court, in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1996 SC 372 : [1995(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 370 (SC)], amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- each, which they shall deposit with the trial court within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which their appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit being so made, trial court will issue notice to injured Kulwant Kaur and Sukhwinder Kaur and disburse the amount to them (Rs. 5000/- each) forthwith by way of compensation. 14. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of.