JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J.:- Heard. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.333-SB of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.1459 of 2003. 2. The appellants have not assailed the judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2003 passed against them by Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar in case FIR No. 40 dated 7.10.1998 under Sections 307, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it has been pleaded that the appellants have no criminal past and after the conviction in this case, they have not committed any offence. It has been urged that Sucha Singh-appellant No.1, who was allegedly attributed injury No.1 on the person of Ujagar Singh, which was declared dangerous to life and accused Baljinder Singh-appellant No.4 “have already undergone the complete sentence awarded to them. Accused Sucha Si’ngh and Amrik Singh, appellants No.1 and 3, respectively also suffered injuries in the occurrence. Accused Amrik Singh was empty handed, while Sucha Singh inflicted kulhari (axe) blow on the wrist of Ujagar Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that they have been facing trial since 1999 and this appeal is also pending since the year 2003, therefore, lenient view may be taken. 4. Having scrutinised the evidence on record, it transpires that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. The injured witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and, thus, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, cannot be disturbed. The evidence also reveals that the judgment of acquittal of Jagar Singh alias Ujagar Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Baldev Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Jagir Singh, Gurjant Singh, Darshan Singh and Kaka Singh alias Harpreet Singh (respondents in the revision petition) in cross-case is also based on proper appreciation of evidence. 5. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the injury dangerous to life on the person of Ujagar Singh is attributed to accused Sucha Singh. The accused Amrik Singh and Sucha Singh also suffered injuries, but they are not grievous in nature. Moreover, they-have also suffered much agony of criminal trial for about four years as well as of the pendency of their appeal in this court for about four years. Therefore, it will be appropriate to take some lenient view towards the accused Amrik Singh and Sucha Singh. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed qua the judgment of conviction. Therefore, it will be appropriate to take some lenient view towards the accused Amrik Singh and Sucha Singh. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed qua the judgment of conviction. However, the sentence order is modified to the extent that the sentence of Amrik Singh and Sucha Singh is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years from rigorous imprisonment for three years, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, without disturbing the sentence of fine awarded against the appellants as also the sentences qua other offences. The revision petition also fails and is hereby dismissed. ———————————-