JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) - By filing this appeal, the appellants have made challenge to the judgment and order dated 16.5.1992, vide which they were convicted for commission of offence under Sections 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and also for commission of offence under section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. They were ordered to undergo following sentence :- "Gulab Singh Under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code To undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. Under Section 323 Indian Penal Code To pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 15 days. Raja Singh Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code To undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. Under Section 323/34 Indian Penal Code To pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 15 days." 2. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was further directed that fine imposed, on realisation, be paid to injured Gobind Singh. 3. Appellants-accused along with one Phoola Singh were ordered to face trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/323/324/34 Indian Penal Code. Briefly it was story of the prosecution that on 23.6.1991 at about 10.00 P.M. Gobind Singh along with Jit Singh was going towards the electric transformer. When they reached near the transformer, Gulab singh accused-appellant armed with a Taqua, Phoola Singh armed with a spear and Raja Singh armed with a spear were standing there. After some altercation, Gulab Singh gave a Taqua blow to Gobind Singh which hit on his right wrist. Phoola Singh gave a spear blow which landed on the right thigh whereas Raja Singh gave a spear blow on the right side of chest. Gobind Singh raised an alarm and the assailants ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. Gobind Singh injured was admitted in Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi. His medico-legal examination was conducted by Dr. Ravinder Singh (PW2), who found the following injuries on his person :- "1. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.2.5 cm adjoining 3 cm x 0.25 cm on the route of the right thumb. Gobind Singh injured was admitted in Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi. His medico-legal examination was conducted by Dr. Ravinder Singh (PW2), who found the following injuries on his person :- "1. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.2.5 cm adjoining 3 cm x 0.25 cm on the route of the right thumb. Bleeding was present. 2. An incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 3 cm deep on the medial aspect of the left thigh 20 cm below the left anterior superior illiac spine. Bleeding was present. 3. A punctured wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm air coming out through the punctured wound 1 cm away from the angle of luis on the right side. Bleeding was present. 4. Injury No. 3 was declared dangerous to life. FIR was recorded on the basis of statement made by Gobind Singh. On completion of evidence, final report was submitted before the trial Court. The appellants along with Phoola Singh were charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution then led evidence to prove their guilt and on conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants and Phoola Singh were recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they denied all the accusations appearing against them in prosecution evidence and pleaded their false implication. They have also led evidence in defence. 5. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence, as led by both the parties, acquitted Phoola Singh and convicted and sentenced the present appellants as aforementioned in para 1 of this order. 6. It is not necessary to refer to detailed facts of this case as Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, has confined his arguments only qua quantum of sentence. Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant No. 1 Gulab Singh was of 70 years of age and Raja Singh appellant No. 2 was of 19 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence and now Gulab Singh is an old man, may be at the verge of his last years of life, and Raja Singh is a young man settled with his family and now leading a discipline life. If, at this stage, the appellants are sent behind the bars, not only they but their families will suffer. If, at this stage, the appellants are sent behind the bars, not only they but their families will suffer. They had been under lurking fear that they will be sent behind the bars on one day or the other and it had its desired effect as both of the appellants had not indulged themselves into any other criminal activity after their conviction in this case. 7. Counsel for the appellants further brought to the notice of this Court that appellant Raja Singh had already undergone three and half months of imprisonment and Gulab Singh appellant had remained behind the bars for about two months during his trial. Counsel further stated that the appellants and the injured are co-villagers. With the passage of time, they have virtually settled their disputes and are now living happily in the village and if at this stage the appellants are directed to undergo the remaining period of sentence, it would not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village and would further escalate enmity between the parties. He prayed that leniency be shown to the appellants. They be given a chance to rehabilitate. Counsel contended that their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. Mr. G.S. Bhandari, learned State counsel has vehemently controverted the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. He prayed that a very lenient treatment was given to the appellants by the trial Court even though their guilt was proved on record. Mr. Bhandari stated that the sentence awarded to the appellants was in proportion to the offences committed by them. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 9. Counsel for the parties heard. After hearing, this Court feels that the purpose of criminal law justice is not only to punish an erring individual but is also to reform him. In view of the facts of this case, the Court feels that appellants deserve a lenient treatment. 10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 161, opined as under :- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and refomative. The purpose is that the person guilty of commiting the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. 10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 161, opined as under :- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and refomative. The purpose is that the person guilty of commiting 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 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; 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. 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 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." 11. In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Supreme Court, keeping in view a 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. 12. 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. 12. 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. 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 a fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. 13. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467. 14. It is apparent from the record of this case that the appellants and the injured are co-villagers and if at this stage, they are sent behind the bars, it will enhance enmity and will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village. Raja Singh appellant was only of 19 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence which took place in the year 1991. As per the information supplied, he is the only bread winner of his family and now residing peacefully with his children. Gulab Singh appellant is an old man of about 82 years of age. Otherwise also, as per the prosecution story only one injury each had been attributed to the appellants and Phoola Singh who was acquitted by the trial Court. They individually never tried to repeat the assail. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that they were not the previous convicts and after their conviction, they have not indulged themselves in any other criminal activity. 15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction is upheld. However, the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, in view of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372, fine imposed upon them is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- over and above the one already imposed by the trial Court. The fine is directed to be deposited with the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of fine so made, trial Court will issue a notice to injured Gobind Singh/his legal heirs and disburse that amount to him/them forthwith. In case the fine is not deposited during the stipulated period, this appeal shall be deemed to have dismissed. On deposit of fine so made, trial Court will issue a notice to injured Gobind Singh/his legal heirs and disburse that amount to him/them forthwith. In case the fine is not deposited during the stipulated period, this appeal shall be deemed to have dismissed. With the above mentioned modification, the appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.