JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) - FIR No. 109 dated 22.3.1982 was recorded against the petitioners and three other persons namely Bhim Singh, Sultan Singh and Malkhan Singh. Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 7.9.1990 and 10.9.1990 respectively, found the petitioners and Bhim Singh guilty for commisison of offences punishable under Sections 326, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Sultan Singh and Malkhan Singh were found guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 325, 324/34 Indian Penal Code. They were accordingly convicted. Petitioners and Bhim Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each. For non-payment of fine, they were to further undergo RI for one month. Lesser sentence was awarded to them for commission of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323. However, Sultan Singh and Malkhan Singh, co-accused, were ordered to be released on probation, on their furnishing surety bonds, for a period of six months. 2. Petitioners alongwith Bhim Singh filed appeal against their conviction and sentence, as referred to above. Appellate Court below acquitted Bhim Singh, however, qua the petitioners, conviction and sentence was upheld and their appeal was dismissed on 6.5.1993. 3. Briefly, it was case of the prosecution that some dispute was going on between the petitioners party and the complainant regarding land owned by grand mother of Dille Ram (PW5). Proceedings were initiated against both the parties under Sections 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code On 22.3.1982 at about 8.00/9.00 AM, when Dille Ram was coming to his house and had reached near the fields of Randhir Singh, petitioners, alongwith Bhim Singh, came there and caused injuries to him. He started running towards the village. He was chased by the persons named above and in the meantime, Malkhan Singh and Sultan Singh, Issar Singh and Dhan Singh armed with wooden sticks also came there. They also caused injuries to Dille Ram. When Kishani wife of Dille Ram came to his help, injuries were also caused to her. On alarm being raised, all the accused named above, ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. Injured were taken to the hospital and got medically examined. FIR was recorded at the instance of Dille Ram, injured. 4. When Kishani wife of Dille Ram came to his help, injuries were also caused to her. On alarm being raised, all the accused named above, ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. Injured were taken to the hospital and got medically examined. FIR was recorded at the instance of Dille Ram, injured. 4. During investigation, Ishar and Dhan Singh were found innocent, however, all other five persons named above were prima facie found guilty and final report was submitted against them in Court for trial. Trial Court charge- sheeted them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution then led evidence and on completion of prosecution evidence their statements were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they denied all the allegations appearing againt them and claimed false implication. No evidence was led in defence. Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, found them guilty, convicted and sentenced them as found mentioned in para 1 of this order. 5. Petitioners alongwith Bhim Singh went in appeal, which was allowed qua Bhim Singh and was dismissed so far as petitioners are concerned. Hence, this revision petition. 6. It is not necessary to refer to further details of this case, as Shri R.M. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has confined his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. He has vehemently contended that both the petitioners were of young age i.e. 25 and 27 years at the time of alleged occurrence, which allegedly had taken place due to some land dispute inter-se the parties. He brought it to the notice of the Court that the petitioners were not the previous convicts and after their conviction in this case, they had disciplined themselves and now are residing in a very peaceful manner alongwith their families. If at this stage, they are ordered to undergo remaining part of their sentence, not only they, but their families will also suffer and it will not be conducive to the peace and harmony in the village. He further stated that the petitioners and the injured are the co-villagers and with the passage of time, they have virtually settled their dispute. 7. He further stated that the petitioners and the injured are the co-villagers and with the passage of time, they have virtually settled their dispute. 7. He further argued that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 1982, petitioners continued to face agony of trial for a long period of 8 years, which was concluded on 7.9.1990, thereafter their appeal was decided on 6.5.1993 and since then, their revision petition is pending in this Court. In this manner, sword of conviction continued to hang over their heads and lurking fear remained in their mind that one day or the other they will be sent behind the bars. Counsel states that this fear had a desired effect of reforming the petitioners and they have not indulged in any other criminal activity after conviction in this case. He further brought it to the notice of the Court that during trial and after their conviction in this case, they had already undergone more than 1-1/2 months of imprisonment. He prayed that leniency be shown to them and their sentence be reduced to the one already undergone by them. 8. Arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioners have vehemently been opposed by Shri Sheokand, counsel appearing for the State. By referring to evidence on record, he argued that guilt of the petitioners was proved on record and accordingly, sentence awarded to them was justified. He prayed that no leniency be shown to them and their revision petition be dismissed. 9. This Court feels that purpose of criminal law is not only to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. Petitioners and the injured are the co-villagers. Occurrence had taken place in the year 1982 and if at this stage, the petitioners are sent behind the bars, it will be detrimental towards peace and harmony in the village. 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 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. 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 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; 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 mattes 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, 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 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. 12. Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 600. 12. Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 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 the 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) RCR(Crl.) 467. 14. In the case in hand, it is apparent from the record that though the petitioners were armed with deadly weapons, no injury dangerous to life was caused on any vital part of the body of Dille Ram and Kishani. Only one injury was found to be grievous in nature and that too a fracture on the thumb of Dille Ram. This Court feels that keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case, petitioners are entitled to a lenient treatment. Accordingly, their conviction is maintained but their sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by them. However, punishment of fine is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- (to be paid equally by both the petitioners), over and above the fine already imposed by the trial court. They are directed to deposit the fine, as enhanced, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed, falling which their revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit so being made by the petitioners, trial court is directed to disburse that amount to the injured/their legal heirs forthwith as compensation. 15. With the above modifications, revision petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.