JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 29.7.1989, whereby he convicted accused appellant Jitendra alias Jitiya under various offences as under: U/Sec. 307 IPC : Two & half years' R.I. & a fine of Rs. 50/- & in default, to further undergo one month's R.I. U/Sec. 324 IPC : One year's R.I. U/Sec. 427 IPC : 2. The facts leading to this appeal are that on 19.5.1988 at 2.45 PM, Smt.Sugra wife of Chand Mohd. made a written report Ex.P.1 at Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur that she purchased a plot, located at Isaiyon Ka Kabristan from one Babulal Khatri one month's back, where she is residing with her family members. At 2.15 PM, accused appellant Jitendra alias Jitiya, who is her neighbourer, came and demolished the stone slabs of the plot. Upon this, her son Mehboob Khan obstructed him. Thereupon, accused appellant inflicted knife blow on the back side of Mehboob Khan. When her sister in law tried to intervene, accused also inflicted knife blow on her hand. Upon cry, the accused appellant ran away. On this report, the police registered a case for the offences u/ss.307, 324 and 427 IPC and commenced investigation. After investigation, the accused appellant was challaned and on committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against him u/ss.307, 324 and 427 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and statement of accused u/s.313 Cr.PC was recorded, in which he stated that it is a false case against him. On the contrary, he also stated that the injuries were inflicted on his person, as the complainant party wanted to disturb his possession. Learned trial Judge after hearing the arguments, convicted the appellant as above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that today, accused appellant is brought in custody by the police in pursuance of this Court's order dated 1.5.2008 and nobody is available to give bail bonds on his behalf, therefore, the appeal itself should be heard and finally decided. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is about 20 years old and on account of dispute over the land, the incident has taken place and the accused has remained in custody during trial from 21.7.88 to 26.8.88 and in appeal, from 29.7.89 to 22.8.89. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is about 20 years old and on account of dispute over the land, the incident has taken place and the accused has remained in custody during trial from 21.7.88 to 26.8.88 and in appeal, from 29.7.89 to 22.8.89. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice, if the accused appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone. 5. Keeping in view the submissions, made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I feel that in such an old case, the ends of justice would be met, if the accused appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone. 6. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of appellant for the offences u/ss.307, 324 and 427 IPC recorded by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur vide his judgment dated 29.7.1989, he is sentenced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine of Rs.50/- awarded u/s.307 IPC is maintained, which the appellant shall deposit within a period of 15 days from today before the trial Court. Since the appellant has been produced in custody by the police pursuant to warrant of arrest, he be released forthwith.Appeal Partly Allowed *******