JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Gurdip Singh, Wadawa Singh sons of Puran Singh and Jagga Singh son of Wadawa Singh stand convicted and sentenced by the judgment dated 13.12.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot as under : 2. Gurdip Singh under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, Wadawa Singh and Jagga Singh under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year each. Wadawa Singh under Section 326 Indian Penal Code, Gurdip Singh and Jagga Singh under Section 326/34 Indian Penal Code to undergo RI for three years each. Wadawa Singh under section 323 Indian Penal Code, Gurdip Singh and Jagga Singh under Section 323/34 Indian Penal Code to undergo RI for one year each. Jagga Singh under Section 323 Indian Penal Code, Gurdip Singh and Wadawa Singh under Section 323/34 Indian Penal Code to undergo RI for one year each. 3. However, all the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Bachittar Singh son of Kapur Singh, their co-accused, however, stands acquitted. No appeal has been filed against his acquittal by the State. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of their conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 6. I do not feel the necessity of entering into detailed discussion so far as merits are concerned, as Mr. Girdhar appearing for the appellants has not joined issues on merits and has instead confined his arguments with regard to quantum of sentence only. 7. Dwelling upon his arguments in this regard, Mr. Girdhar submits that there are injuries on both sides in this case as Gurdip Singh appellant has received four injuries whereas Wadawa Singh appellant has received six injuries. He then contends that Surinder Kaur wife of Gurdip Singh appellant has also received an incised wound on her head. According to the learned counsel, the incident took place on account of a dispute over possession of the land and both the sides have received similar nature of injuries caused by the same kind of weapons. He further submits that all the three appellants have already undergone about one year during trial and also remained in custody for about a week after they were convicted and their sentence was suspended by this Court. He further submits that all the three appellants have already undergone about one year during trial and also remained in custody for about a week after they were convicted and their sentence was suspended by this Court. The learned counsel also submits that the appellants have not indulged in any such criminal activity after the present incident. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence. 8. The learned State counsel while refuting the submissions made by Mr. Girdhar submits that the present appellants do not deserve any leniency so far as quantum of sentence is concerned as they in furtherance of their common intention had attacked Baldev Singh and Angrez Singh and caused them as many as 11 injuries with deadly weapons. 9. After hearing both the sides and going through the entire record, I am of the view that the appellants do deserve a lenient view towards the quantum of sentence. 10. Although the impugned judgment is not assailed on merits, yet I have closely scrutinized the evidence especially the medical evidence. Gurdip Singh appellant stands convicted substantively under Section 307 Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Baldev Singh whereas Wadawa Singh stands convicted substantively under Section 326 Indian Penal Code for causing injury to Gurdip Singh. Jagga Singh stands convicted substantively under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. Baldev Singh has received as many as 6 injuries. Injury No. 1 on his person was declared dangerous to life. Angrez Singh has received as many as 5 injuries. Injury No. 1 on his head has been declared grievous in nature. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that injury No. 1 on the person of Baldev Singh is attributed to Gurdip Singh, whereas injury No. 1 on the person of Angrez Singh has been attributed to Wadawa Singh. In total, Baldev Singh and Wadawa Singh have received as many as 11 injuries. 11. From the side of the appellants, Wadawa Singh has received six injuries, out of which two are incised wounds and one of the injuries is on the head. Gurdip Singh appellant has received four injuries, one of which was declared grievous in nature. Surinder Kaur wife of Gurdip Singh, who has not been booked in this case, has also received one injury on her head. Gurdip Singh appellant has received four injuries, one of which was declared grievous in nature. Surinder Kaur wife of Gurdip Singh, who has not been booked in this case, has also received one injury on her head. According to the doctor, injury No. 6 on the person of Wadawa Singh appellant is multiple abrasions. Similarly injury No. 4 on the person of Gurdip Singh is again multiple bruises. This indicates that the injuries are much more in number than described by the doctor in the medico legal reports. 12. The aforesaid chart of injuries received by both the sides in this occurrence indicates that almost similar type of weapons have been used in causing these injuries. This fact alone would be enough for reducing the quantum of sentence. 13. As stated by learned counsel for the appellants and not refuted by the learned State Counsel, all the appellants have already undergone some part of the sentence. They are also stated to have been living peacefully and have not participated in any such act after the present occurrence. Sending the appellants to jail once again after the lapse of so many years in my considered view would amount to reopening the wounds which might have healed by now. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161, observed 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. 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 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." 14. In another judgment of this Court in Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 404-SB of 1998, decided on December 4, 2002, it was a case under Sections 307/326/324 Indian Penal Code. The sentence of the appellants was reduced to the period already undergone by them (i.e. about five months) on the ground that they had already faced the protracted trial for about 15 years and no untoward incident had happened during the interregnum. 15. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence awarded to all the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed upon Gurdip Singh appellant is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and upon Wadawa Singh appellant it is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. In case Gurdip Singh and Wadawa Singh appellants have already deposited Rs. 1,000/- each imposed upon them by the learned trial Court under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, the same shall be deducted from the enhanced amount of fine. This amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within three months from today. In case of deposit of the amount, Rs. 10,000/- shall be remitted to Baldev Singh injured and Rs. This amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within three months from today. In case of deposit of the amount, Rs. 10,000/- shall be remitted to Baldev Singh injured and Rs. 5,000/- to Angrez Singh injured after giving them due notice. In case the aforesaid amount of fine imposed upon Gurdip Singh and Wadawa Singh is not deposited, they shall be serving out the entire remaining substantive sentence as awarded by the trial Court. The amount of fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed upon Jagga Singh appellant shall, however, remain as it is. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.