JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) - Vide judgment and order dated 14.11.1991, appellant/accused was found guilty and convicted for commission of offences under Sections 307/324/459 Indian Penal Code. He was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- for commission of an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. He was further to undergo RI for 1 year for commission of an offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and to undergo further RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for commission of an offence under Section 459 Indian Penal Code. Hence, this appeal. 2. FIR (Ex. PH) was recorded at the instance of Smt. Amar Devi on 30.10.1988, wherein it was stated that her husband Kewal Krishan was owner of Truck bearing registration No. PJD 8085 and appellant/accused was working as a Cleaner on that Truck. After serving for about 22 days, he was removed by her husband and his salary was cleared. On 29.10.1988 at about 11.00 pm, she was sleeping in her house with her three daughters, her husband was away in connection with some work. Accused came there and knocked the door by saying that he is cleaner of their vehicle which had met with an accident. On identifying his voice, she did not open the door. 3. After sometime, on the same night, she went to her brother-in-laws house, who was residing nearby and asked him that he may send his son to sleep in their house. She also told him regarding fact of the accused coming to their house. At this, Subhash Chander came to her house and slept in courtyard, while Amar Devi and her daughters slept in a room. An electric bulb was on. At 3.00 am on 30.10.1988, accused again came there through the roof. He was seen by Amar Devi in the courtyard. She raised an alarm. When Subhash Chander tried to catch hold of the accused, he caused injuries to him with a knife on his chest, abdomen and left leg. In the meantime, Ram Chand and Roshan Lal also came there and tried to caught hold of the accused but he ran away from the spot from side of the roof, after causing injuries to them also. Subhash Chander ran after the accused but he could not be apprehended. 4. In the meantime, Ram Chand and Roshan Lal also came there and tried to caught hold of the accused but he ran away from the spot from side of the roof, after causing injuries to them also. Subhash Chander ran after the accused but he could not be apprehended. 4. Injured were removed to the hospital and were medically examined. After completion of investigation, final report was submitted before the court. Trial court, issued charge-sheet to the appellant/accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution then led evidence to prove his guilt and on completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein, he denied all the allegations appearing against him and pleaded false implication. However, he led no evidence in defence. 5. Trial Court on appraisal of evidence, found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him, as found mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 6. This appeal was received through jail alongwith an application that appellant/accused is a poor person, having no means to engage any counsel. A prayer was made that amicus curiae be appointed in his case. 7. From record, it appears that subsequent thereto, application for bail was moved by one Shri J.S. Dhillon, Advocate and the appellant/accused was enlarged on bail on 18.8.1992. When this appeal came up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Notice was sent to him. Notice was received back with a report that address is incomplete. Then keeping in view order dated 27.5.1992, wherein it was mentioned that amicus curiae will be appointed at the time of hearing, Mr. Deepak Ballyan, Advocate was requested to assist this Court as an amicus curiae, to which, he agreed. Today he is ready with the arguments. 8. By referring to certain discrepancies in the statements of injured and other prosecution witnesses, Mr. Ballyan has stated that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. He also argued that identity of the appellant/accused was not established. He, by referring to the medical evidence on record, has stated that as per prosecution version, occurrence had taken place at 3.00 am, however, injured were examined between 12.30 pm and 1.30 pm, the next day and this delay had not been explained. He also argued that identity of the appellant/accused was not established. He, by referring to the medical evidence on record, has stated that as per prosecution version, occurrence had taken place at 3.00 am, however, injured were examined between 12.30 pm and 1.30 pm, the next day and this delay had not been explained. He prayed that appeal be allowed, judgment under challenge be set aside and appellant/accused be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 9. Arguments raised by Mr. Ballyan had vehemently been opposed by Mr. Gill, appearing for the State. He, by referring to the statements of the prosecution witnesses and medical evidence on record, has stated that the guilt of the appellant/accused was proved on record, conviction and sentence was justified. He prayed that appeal be dismissed, having no substance. 10. Counsel for the parties heard and with their assistance, record has been looked into. 11. It is apparent from the record that all the three injured witnesses had supported case of the prosecution, apart from other eye witnesses. Discrepancies in their statements are minor in nature and were not fatal to the case of prosecution. Appellant/accused had been working as a Cleaner on truck owned by the husband of the complainant. He was known to the family members. He was recognised due to light of electric bulb which was on in the courtyard. So far as delayed medical examination is concerned, record clearly shows that injured had arrived in the hospital immediately and accordingly intimation was sent to the police officials by the doctor at 6.00 am. If they were not examined immediately, fault does not lie with the injured witnesses. This Court feels that so far as merits are concerned, appellant/accused has no case. 12. Compelled under this situation, counsel for the appellant makes a prayer that the appellant/accused is a poor person, he could not even arrange counsel for himself before this Court. Occurrence took place on 30.10.1988. He continued to face agony of trial till 14.11.1991, when judgment under challenge was passed. Even thereafter, he could not file appeal in time. Appeal was filed through jail at a belated stage, which was admitted on 27.5.1992. On an application for bail, moved by counsel he was granted bail by this Court on 18.8.1992. Occurrence took place on 30.10.1988. He continued to face agony of trial till 14.11.1991, when judgment under challenge was passed. Even thereafter, he could not file appeal in time. Appeal was filed through jail at a belated stage, which was admitted on 27.5.1992. On an application for bail, moved by counsel he was granted bail by this Court on 18.8.1992. By referring to contents of judgment under challenge, wherein it is stated that appellant/accused was produced in Court in custody at the time of arguments and also by referring to the facts, as have happened before this Court, counsel stated that appellant had already undergone about two years and nine months imprisonment. He prays that keeping in view his young age (mentioned 19 years at the time of occurrence), poverty, period of sentence undergone by him, his sentence be reduced to the one, already undergone by him. 13. This prayer has half-heartedly been opposed by Shri Gill, appearing for the State. 14. This Court feels that purpose of criminal law justice 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. In this case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1988, trial continued till November, 1991 and since thereafter, appeal of the appellant is pending in this Court. 15. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161, had observed that in appropriate cases, reformative approach is required to be adopted by the courts. 16. 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 occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 17. To the same effect is the opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 600 (P&H), Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 467 (P&H) and Supreme Court in Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 486 and Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577 and in Habbalppa Dundappakatti and others v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 197. 18. 18. In all above mentioned cases, keeping in view facts and circumstances, sentences were reduced to the one already undergone by the appellant/accused therein. 19. In the case in hand, it is apparent from the record that appellant/accused was not even in a position to engage a counsel for himself before this Court. Appeal was filed at a very belated stage through jail. He was young at the time when alleged occurrence had taken place. May be without knowing consequences, he might had committed the offence at that time. He had also undergone substantial portion of his sentence, he might have earned remissions etc. also. 20. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case, conviction is upheld. However, sentence awarded to the appellant/accused is reduced to the one already undergone by him. Punishment of fine is kept intact. 21. With above mentioned modification qua sentence, this appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.