JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J.:-The appellants were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur for an offence under Section 364 IPC with the allegations that on 22.2.1989 at 6.00 P. M. they along with others Kidnapped Mohinder Singh PW3 so that he might be murdered. Vide judgment and order dated 20.7.1994, the trial Court convicted the appellants for the said offence and sentenced them to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the convict concerned was required to undergo further RI for three months. Hence, the present appeal. 2. As per the FIR lodged at the instance of Teja Singh PW6 on 22.2.1989, he along with Niranjan Singh, Ajaib Singh, Gurdev Singh and Mohinder Singh PW3 was putting loose soil at the site of pond, being constructed in the Gurdwara premises, with the help of a tractor to level it. At about 6.00 P.M., a jeep, belonging to Jasdev Singh appellant, reached there, which was being driven by Mohinder Singh appellant. Jasdev Singh and Pargat Singh, while accompanied by five nihangs were sitting in the said jeep. All of them alighted therefrom. They caught hold of Mohinder Singh PW3 and dragged him to the jeep. Teja Singh and others, who were present there, lodged a protest but nobody listened to them. The accused then left towards village Ganauri Kalan, while taking Mohinder Singh PW3 with them in their jeep. It was stated by Teja Singh informant that Mohinder Singh PW3 was kidnapped by the accused with an intention to kill him. It was also stated in the FIR that Mohinder Singh being granthi of the Gurudwara was constructing a pond adjoining the Gurudwara after making collection from the villagers but the accused including the present appellants were annoyed over it. The statement Ex.PC of Teja Singh was recorded by SI Baldev Singh PW8 on 22.2.1989 at 8.10 P.M. at bus stand, Sherpur. Ruqa was thereafter sent to the Police Station, where formal FIR Ex.PC/2 was recorded at 8.30 P.M., the same evening. 3. Immediately thereafter, SI Baldev Singh started the investigation and made a search for the accused person. On the next day, he recovered Mohinder Singh PW3 from a Gurudwara at Sangrur. Statements of PWs were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Rough site plan Ex.PF of the place from where Mohinder Singh PW3 was recovered, was prepared. 3. Immediately thereafter, SI Baldev Singh started the investigation and made a search for the accused person. On the next day, he recovered Mohinder Singh PW3 from a Gurudwara at Sangrur. Statements of PWs were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Rough site plan Ex.PF of the place from where Mohinder Singh PW3 was recovered, was prepared. Another rough site plan Ex.PG was prepared of the place from where Mohinder Singh was kidnapped. On 25.2.1989 the appellants were arrested in the case. Jeep No. RRK-5023 was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PE. After completion of the formalities, SI Baldev Singh presented the challan. 4. Following the commitment of the case, charge under Section 364 IPC was framed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur against the appellants on 22.3.1990. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. R.N. Singla PW1, who deposed about medico-legal examination of Mohinder Singh, which was conducted by him on 23.2.1989 at 10.45 A.M. Following injuries were noticed during the said examination:­ “1. An abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on the back of the left fore-arm, 2 cm above the wrist joint. 2. An abrasion 1 cm x 1/3 cm on the dorsal surface of the left hand, 2" behind the web border of the hand in between the thumb and index finger. 3. He was complaining of pain in his throat. 4. He was complaining of the pain in the epigastric area.” All the injuries were declared simple in nature and were the result of blunt weapon. These were caused within a duration of 24 hours. At the time of his examination the injured was conscious. 6. Mohinder Singh, who was kidnapped by the appellants and others appeared as PW3 and stated the prosecution version. He also stated that after being kidnapped, the appellants and the other nihangs brought him to the chhawni of nihangs at Sangrur, where he was confined in a room. He was also given beatings on the way by all the accused. Next day at about 8.00 A.M. he was recovered by the police from the said room. He was thereafter medically examined in Civil Hospital, Dhuri. 7. Karam Singh PW4, who was posted as a Patwari, proved the scaled site plan Ex. PC, which was prepared by him. He was also given beatings on the way by all the accused. Next day at about 8.00 A.M. he was recovered by the police from the said room. He was thereafter medically examined in Civil Hospital, Dhuri. 7. Karam Singh PW4, who was posted as a Patwari, proved the scaled site plan Ex. PC, which was prepared by him. Teja Singh, who had lodged the FIR in question, wherein he stated about the kidnapping of Mohinder Singh by the accused and the motive for the same, appeared as PW6. The investigation part of the case was proved by SI Baldev Singh PW8, ASI Hamir Singh PW5 and ASI Sohan Lal PW7. 8. The prosecution, however, gave up Niranjan Singh and Ajaib Singh on police request, as having been won over by the accused. The evidence of the prosecution was, accordingly closed. 9. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the appellants stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated in the case. They, however, examined Bharpur Singh DW1 and Bishan Chand, retired SP DW2. 10. After perusing the evidence and going through the various documents brought on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 11. The recovery of the person of Mohinder Singh PW3 from a room in a Gurudwara at Sangrur when he was found to have already suffered injuries is sufficient corroboration to the version of Teja Singh PW6 Mohinder Singh PW3 regarding the occurrence. Dr. R.N. Singla found four injuries on the person of Mohinder Singh when he conducted his medico-legal examination on 23.2.1989 at 10.45 A.M. The type of injuries were such which could be caused by blunt weapons. These injuries were found to be of the duration of 24 hours. 12. Teja Singh PW6 had made a statement before SI Baldev Singh PW8 on 22.2.1989 at 8.10 P.M. at bus stand, Sherpur. The occurrence having taken place at 6.00 P.M. on the same day, it cannot be said that the statement was made by Teja Singh after an inordinate delay Formal FIR was recorded in Police Station, Sherpur at 8.30 P.M., the same evening and concluded at 9.05 P.M. 13. The occurrence having taken place at 6.00 P.M. on the same day, it cannot be said that the statement was made by Teja Singh after an inordinate delay Formal FIR was recorded in Police Station, Sherpur at 8.30 P.M., the same evening and concluded at 9.05 P.M. 13. Though during the investigation of the case, Jasdev Singh appellant was found to be innocent and his name placed in column No.2, yet later on, he was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Bishan Chand retired SP, while appearing as DW2 .stated that he conducted an enquiry into the case, wherein he found Jasdev Singh accused to be innocent. However, in his cross-examination, said DW2 admitted that he did not associate either Teja Singh complainant or Mohinder Singh victim during the said enquiry. Thus, no importance can be attached to the fact that Jasdev Singh appellant was at one point of time found to be innocent by the police. 14. Mohinder Singh PW3, being granthi of the village Gurudwara, was constructing a pond by the side of the said place. He used to be helped out in his venture by Teja Singh PW6 and others. The money required to be spent for the construction was being collected by Mohinder Singh PW3 from the villagers in the shape of donations. This thing had been irking the appellants and, thus, they had every reason to cause harm to Mohinder Singh PW3. 15. Bharpur Singh DW1 deposed that Managing Committee of the Gurudwara had passed a resolution for the removal of Mohinder Singh PW3 from the Managing Committee of the Gurudwara. However, DW1 admitted in his cross­ examination that the resolution Ex.DW1/A was not passed in his presence. 16. In view of the aforementioned discussion, there is no escape but to conclude that the appellants had committed an offence under Section 364 IPC and thus rightly convicted for the said offence by the trial Court. 17. Coming to the question of sentence, it has to be seen that the occurrence in question had taken place on 22.2.1989. More than 18 years have elapsed since then. The trial of the case continued for a period of more than five years. After their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed the present appeal, which remained pending in this Court for about 12 years. More than 18 years have elapsed since then. The trial of the case continued for a period of more than five years. After their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed the present appeal, which remained pending in this Court for about 12 years. It has also been borne from the record that the appellants were initially arrested on 25.2.1989 and thereafter released on bail on 8.3.1989. After passage of such a long time during which the appellants had been facing the agony of the criminal proceedings, it would be nothing but a futile exercise to send them behind the bars once again to serve the un-expired period of their sentences. Ends of justice would be amply met if the sentences of imprisonment of the appellants are reduced to that already undergone by them and at the same time enhancing the fine from Rs.1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- each. Accordingly, while the conviction of the appellants under Section 364 IPC is maintained, their sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. The fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon each of the appellants is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting appellant shall undergo further RI for three months. Upon their conviction and sentence, the appellants had deposited fine of Rs.1,000/- each before the trial Court as is clear from the order dated 20.7.1994 when they were granted interim bail to enable them to file an appeal in this Court. The appellants are, thus, required to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- each, which shall be deposited by them with the trial Court within three months from today. Except for the modification in the sentence as indicated above, the present appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ————————————