JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - Vide judgment and order dated August 8, 1996, appellant- accused was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. This case pertains to death of Suman daughter of Yudhishter Prashad, complainant, on December 2, 1993. It was case of the prosecution that deceased was a student of X class and on November 27, 1993, when she was returning from School to her house, appellant-accused met her and struck his elbow against the deceased with intend to tease her. She told about the occurrence to her father, who assured her to enquire about the incident from the appellant- accused. On that very day, complainant met the appellant in front of his house. When complainant enquired about the incident, appellant started misbehaving with him, on account of which he was given beating. After two days, i.e., on December 1, 1993, at about 7 P.M., when appellants father came to know about beating of his son by the complainant, he came to complainants shop and asked them as to why he had beaten his son, the appellant. Gulzar Singh and Veer Singh PWs were present at the shop of complainant at the time of incident. When complainant and Ram Bahadur, father of the appellant, were talking to each other, appellant came there and in a loud voice stated that not only he had teased the deceased but had also raped her. He also threatened that if she went out of house, he would kill her. These utterances were heard by the deceased and her mother Lalita Rani, who were standing at the first floor of the house. On being pacified by Gulzar Singh and Veer Singh, appellant and his father went back. On December 2, 1993, deceased refused to go to School on the pretext, that she had a stomach ache but actually she was worried about the threat given by the appellant the previous night. She was also feeling ashamed because of that. At about 9.30 A.M., complainant along with his wife Lalita Rani went to his shop. On December 2, 1993, deceased refused to go to School on the pretext, that she had a stomach ache but actually she was worried about the threat given by the appellant the previous night. She was also feeling ashamed because of that. At about 9.30 A.M., complainant along with his wife Lalita Rani went to his shop. At about 10.30 A.M., he came to know that his house had caught fire. He rushed to the house and found that his daughter Suman was lying burnt and unconscious. He took her to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, where she breathed her last at 3.40 P.M. on the same day. 3. On statement of the complainant, FIR was recorded against the appellant on December 2, 1993, at 6.15 P.M. Post-mortem of the dead-body was conducted. Investigation was completed as per rules and final report was put up before the trial Court. Appellant was charge-sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution then led evidence. As many as ten witnesses were examined to prove its case. documentary evidence was also tendered into evidence. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein he denied all the allegations appearing against him and claimed false implication. He further took a stand that he had a love affair with the deceased. When her parents came to know of the same, they started harassing her, on account of which she committed suicide. He also placed on record some letters allegedly written by the deceased as Mark A and Mark B. He also led evidence in defence. 4. It is not necessary to refer further details of this case as Shri M.S. Khera, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, confined his arguments to quantum of sentence only. Before arguing his case for reduction in sentence, he, by referring to the facts of this case, stated that in view of evidence on record, it is even doubtful as to whether any abetment to commit suicide was made by the appellant-accused in this case. In that regard, he has referred to the statements of defence witnesses. He has also brought it to the notice of the Court that appellant-accused was only 22 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. He had faced agony of trial, which came to an end on August 8, 1996. In that regard, he has referred to the statements of defence witnesses. He has also brought it to the notice of the Court that appellant-accused was only 22 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. He had faced agony of trial, which came to an end on August 8, 1996. Since then, his appeal is pending. During this period, he had suffered financially as well as mentally. He has also brought it to the notice of the Court that during pendency of the appeal, appellant had got married and now he has grown up children and if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, not only he, but his family would suffer. He also argued that complainant and appellant are co-villagers and if the appellant is directed to undergo remaining part of the sentence, it will revive old bad days and bring more hatred, which will not be conducive towards peace and harmony in the village. He further stated that during trial and after his conviction, appellant has already undergone about five months of imprisonment. 5. By moving Criminal Misc. No. 25232-M of 2004 in this appeal, counsel for the appellant had placed on record one affidavit of Yudhishter Prashad, father of the deceased, the complainant, wherein it has been stated that he had got recorded FIR against the appellant under some mistaken belief and wrong information. Now he has come to know that appellant was not at fault and that he was repentant because at this complaint, appellant was convicted. A prayer has been made by the complainant that the appeal be accepted and the conviction of the appellant be set aside. No doubt at this stage, affidavit of the complainant has no relevancy so far as merits of this case are concerned. However, it is a circumstance to take a lenient view against the appellant. 6. 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. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admin.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161, observed as under :- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admin.), 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 decree 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 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." 8. 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. 9. Similar 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). In that case in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted. 9. Similar 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). 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. 10. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 467 (P&H). 11. Counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(10) SCC 486, wherein, in a case under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code, leniency was shown to the accused in that case and they were ordered to be released on probation. 12. To support his contention, counsel for the appellants has also relied upon judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577, wherein, after convicting the appellant-accused therein for commission of an offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in para No. 12 as under :- "12. Even so on the facts and in the circumstances of this case we do not feel persuaded to let off the appellant with an imposition of fine only. We, however, thought that sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in this case. We are informed at the Bar and an affidavit sworn by the appellants wife was also filed before us to the effect that the appellant was in jail for about nine months as under trial prisoner and for about four months after conviction. Thus he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about a year and a month. The occurrence took place more than a decade ago. The appellant had to pass this long ordeal all these years both mentally and financially. Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default two years further imprisonment, we reduce his substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintain the conviction of the appellant not under Part I of Section 304 of the Penal Code but under Part II." 13. Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default two years further imprisonment, we reduce his substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintain the conviction of the appellant not under Part I of Section 304 of the Penal Code but under Part II." 13. Counsel for the State has failed to controvert the averments made by counsel for the appellant regarding age of the appellant, affidavit of father of deceased and period of sentence undergone by the appellant. In the case in hand, it is apparent from the records that the appellant was a young man of 22 years of age at the time of commission of alleged offence. After going through evidence on record, it is doubtful as to whether any offence as alleged was committed by the appellant. However, no finding can be given in that regard as matter was not argued on merits. As per information supplied, during pendency of this appeal, appellant had married and now he has grown up children. This Court feels that if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, his entire family will also suffer. Affidavit filed by the complainant, father of the deceased, clearly indicates that the parties had decided to bury their old past and live in peace. This attitude requires sympathetic consideration by this Court. Appellant has already remained in jail for about five months. Consequently, conviction of the appellant is maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed.