Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against judgment and order dated May 11, 1989, vide which he was convicted under Sections 326 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 326 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 452 I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Since counsel has addressed arguments only regarding quantum of sentence, it is not-necessary to go into merits of the case. 3. Initially, first information report was recorded against the appellant, Baljit Singh and Harnek Singh under Sections 452 and 506 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. However, subsequently, Jagraj Singh, appellant, was further charge sheeted for offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. It was allegation of the prosecution that all of them caused in injuries to Kulwant Kaur in the year 1987. Appellant was armed with a pistol and he fired a shot at her causing injury at her leg. Trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, found appellant guilty of offences under Sections 326 and 452 I.P.C. However, he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 506 and 120-B I.P.C. so far as Baljit Singh and Harnek Singh co-accused are concerned, they were given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trial Court. 4. Shri G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has stated that sword of conviction had been hanging over the head of the appellant for the last more than 13 years, which had a desired effect, and now he is a reformed man and is leading life of a disciplined citizen. He further stated that appellant and injured are co-villagers and if at this stage, appellant is ordered to go behind the bars, it will further increase acrimony between the parties and will have an adverse effect so far as peace in the village is concerned. It is also stated that the appellant is the only bread winner of the family and that he had remained behind the bars for some time during trial. By stating the above facts, it is prayed that his sentence be ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone. This prayer has vehemently been opposed by Shri. J.P. Dhull, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. By stating the above facts, it is prayed that his sentence be ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone. This prayer has vehemently been opposed by Shri. J.P. Dhull, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. He has stated that the trial Court had already awarded the appellant a very lenient punishment, which is in consonance with the offence committed by him. He further prayed that since his guilt is proved on record, his appeal may be dismissed. 5. Criminal law justice system has dual purpose, first to bring peace and harmony in the society and second to give an opportunity to an y erring individual to reform himself or herself. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit-Singh v. State of (Delhi Admn.), (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 161 2002(4) 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 weight 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 effecting society should not be undermined. Within the paramenters 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. 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, again within the permissible limits of law." In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bangal, 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. 6 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 udergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. 7. 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.)]. 8. Injured and appellant are co-villagers. Appellant gave only one injury and that too on non-vital part of the body, and no second attempt was made. Furthermore, as per information supplied by the counsel for the appellant has not indulged himself into any-illegal activity after his conviction. He had also remained behind the bars for quite some time during his trial. Alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 1987 and appeal is still pending. Keeping in view provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and interpretation thereof qua right of an accused to speedy trial. Court can take a lenient view and convict can be compensated for mental agony, which he was facing on account of long drawn litigation without any fault on his part. 9. In view above mentioned facts, sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. However, keeping in view opinion of the Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab. 9. In view above mentioned facts, sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. However, keeping in view opinion of the Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab. AIR 1996(1) Supreme Court 372 : [1995(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 370 (SC)], sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 7,000/-, which will be deposited by the appellant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit being made, trial Court will issue a notice to injured Kulwant Kaur and disburse that amount to her forth with. In case appellant fails to deposit the amount as ordered above, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 10. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.