JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral):-The appellant, alongwith his son Satpal, was sent up for trial by the police on the allegations that on 22.12.1990, the appellant instigated his co-accused to settle the score once for all times to come on which his co-accused Satpal fired shots from .12 bore gun, one of which hit the complainant on his left hand and the other on his chest. Moreover, the gun used by accused Satpal was owned by the appellant. The trial Court charged Satpal for the offences under Sections 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, whereas the appellant was charged under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 29 of the Arms Act. During the trial of the case, accused Satpal was declared a proclaimed offender. Ultimately, vide judgment and order dated July 30, 1997, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda convicted the appellant under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 29 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial Court, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 29 of the Arms Act. However, he has submitted that the appellant was 50 years of age at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., i.e. on 24.7.1997. He was attributed causing of lalkara only. When he was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence he had stated that he was a poor person having four daughters. His son Satpal, who was also charged alongwith him in the present case, had already been killed by the police. Further, the appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 20 years. Out of the sentence of two years imposed upon him, he has already undergone a period of about four months. His son Satpal, who was also charged alongwith him in the present case, had already been killed by the police. Further, the appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 20 years. Out of the sentence of two years imposed upon him, he has already undergone a period of about four months. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars, once again, for undergoing the remainder of his sentence. Thus, his sentence be reduced. 4. Learned State counsel has submitted that it was the appellant who had lent his .12 bore gun to his co-accused Satpal and on exhortation made by him, his son Satpal used the same very weapon in causing injuries to the complainant. Therefore, the appellant does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the respective submissions made by them. 6. It is not in dispute that the sword of criminal prosecution has remained hanging on the head of the appellant for the last about 20 years. From the records, it is apparent that during the investigation of the case, the appellant was taken into custody on 3.1.1991. He was granted the concession of bail during the pendency of the trial by this Court on 18.4.1991 and in pursuance thereof, he was actually released on 22.4.1991. Thus, he has undergone substantive sentence of three months and 19 days in jail out of sentence of two years imposed upon him. Though the weapon used by his co-accused Satpal belonged to the appellant yet he had not caused any injury or used the said weapon in firing upon the complainant. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars, once again, for undergoing his remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentences of the appellant on both the counts are reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time the fine of Rs.3,000/- imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC can be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 7. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 29 of the Arms Act is maintained. At the same time the fine of Rs.3,000/- imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC can be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 7. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 29 of the Arms Act is maintained. However, substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant on both the counts are reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine of Rs.3,000/- imposed upon the appellant for offence under Section 307/34 IPC is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- or in default thereof, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon the appellant for offence under Section 29 of the Arms Act, alongwith its default clause is maintained. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. --------------