JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Amarjit Singh son of Mohinder Singh has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot dated 4.8.1990 vide which he has been convicted under section 326 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two and a half years with a fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. 2. Ghona Singh PW5 is the injured in this case. He was assaulted 25.4.1989 at about 7.30 PM in the area of village Raunta by the present appellant who was armed with a Gandasa. The case of the prosecution in brief is that when Ghona Singh was returning form the house of Amar Singh and reached in front of the house of Saggarh Singh, the present appellant met him. He was armed with a Gandasa and started abusing Ghona Singh. He said to Ghona Singh as to why he sold the plot to Nachhattar Singh whereas there was a talk between them for selling the said plot for Rs. 18,000/-. He gave a gandasa blow on the right arm from the reverse side. He gave another two blows with gandasa from the sharp side on the head of Ghona Singh. Jhanda Singh and Ajaib Singh (PW7) had allegedly seen the present occurrence. Ghona Singh was removed to Faridkot hospital where he was examined by Dr. J.S. Dalal, PW1, who found the following injuries on his person :- "1. A red transverse contusion 8 x 3 cms on right upper arm 2 cms above elbow joint, on its anterior surface. 2. An incised wound 9 x 2 cms on left side of head starting 2 cms from midline of head at the level of anterior hair line and it was going laterally. 3. An incised wound on left side of the head 5 cms behind injury No. 2. It measured 4x1-1/2 cms." 3. The appellant was consequently, booked in this case. 4. After committal proceedings, the appellant was charged under section 307 Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is resting upon the statement of Ghona Singh injured PW5 and Ajaib Singh PW6. 5. The appellant when examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code pleaded false implication in this case due to political enmity. He has also examined DW1 Surjit Singh in defence. 6. The case of the prosecution is resting upon the statement of Ghona Singh injured PW5 and Ajaib Singh PW6. 5. The appellant when examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code pleaded false implication in this case due to political enmity. He has also examined DW1 Surjit Singh in defence. 6. On consideration of whole evidence, the trial court observed that no case under section 307 Indian Penal Code is made out and instead convicted the appellant under section 326 Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. N.S. Virk, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. 8. Mr. Virk does not intend to assail the impugned judgments on merits and instead prayed for the reduction of the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant has already faced the rigor of protracted trial of 14 years as the matter relates to the year 1989. He then contended that at the time of alleged occurrence, the appellant was of the age of 21/22 years and sending him to jail after the lapse of about 14 years would not solve any purpose. He then contended that no untoward incident has ever occurred between the injured and the appellant during the intervening period. 9. It is stated that initially the appellant was arrested in this case under section 323/324 Indian Penal Code. Since the offences were bailable, he was ordered to be released on bail. Subsequently section 326 Indian Penal Code was added in this case and the appellant was granted anticipatory bail. Subsequently, Section 307 Indian Penal Code was added in this case and the appellant was rearrested by the police and thereafter granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 6.12.89. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the appellant has remained in custody for about two months. The learned State counsel has not been able to controvert this factual position. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the appellant does not deserve any concession on the quantum of sentence as he had caused three injuries on the person of Ghona Singh with a Gandasa. 11. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that the appellant does deserve lenient view so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned. 11. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that the appellant does deserve lenient view so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met in case the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. My view is fortified by the judgment of this Court rendered in Bohar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 387. It is ordered accordingly. 12. However, sentence of fine of Rs. 2500/- already imposed by the trial court is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine within three months from today before the trial Court and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo the whole of the substantive sentence as imposed by the trial Court. In case the fine is deposited in the trial Court, the same would be disbursed to the injured Ghona Singh without any delay. 13. With the modification in the quantum of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.