JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral):- Aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 1.6.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, the appellant had filed the present appeal. Vide impugned judgment and order, the appellant was held guilty under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 23.3.1996 at about 5.00 p.m. at the house of Sardara Singh in Chhachhrauli town where the marriage party of Narinder Pal Singh, brother of deceased Harjit Singh, had gone. When the ceremony of marriage was almost over, deceased Harjit Singh started taking photographs of the members of marriage party as well as of the boys and girls present there. However, the appellant alongwith his co-accused Dalbir Singh alias Mangi and Gurmeet Singh alias Mangi objected to the taking of the photographs, on which there was an exchange of words between them. All the three accused started beating Harjit Singh. In order to save himself, the latter ran away and climbed over the roof of the house of Rajinder Singh. He was chased by the three accused. Devinder Singh-appellant climbed over the roof and pushed Harjit Singh from there as a result of which Harjit Singh fell in the courtyard of the house of Rajinder Singh. All the three accused then hit Harjit Singh with brick bats. 3. After the occurrence, Harjit Singh was removed to Sharma Hospital, Jagadhri from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On 24.3.1996 Harjit Singh succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of a statement made by Harbans Singh, father of deceased Harjit Singh, FIR No. 54 dated 24.3.1996 was registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli, under Sections 302/34 IPC against the appellant and his two co-accused. 4. After completion of the investigation and presentation of the challan, the appellant and his co-accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, two co-accused of the appellant, were acquitted of the charge against them. However, the appellant was held guilty under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced, as mentioned above. 6. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, two co-accused of the appellant, were acquitted of the charge against them. However, the appellant was held guilty under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced, as mentioned above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC. Instead, he has submitted that even as per the prosecution, it was a case of sudden occurrence. The trial Court had held that deceased-Harjit Singh was not pushed by the appellant but he fell from the roof out of fear as he was being chased from one roof to the other by the appellant. The appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than fourteen years. During investigation of the case, he was arrested on 27.3.1996 and remained in custody throughout the trial of the case which culminated on 1.6.1998. It was only on 30.6.1998 that this Court while admitting his appeal against his conviction and sentence, ordered for his release on bail. He has, thus, already undergone a substantive sentence of more than two years and three months out of the sentence of seven years imposed upon him. The appellant is not a previous convict and his father has already died. He has to look after his old mother. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the appellant be reduced to that already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the act of the appellant had taken the life of Harjit Singh, a young boy of 20/21 years of age and, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. 8. When the appellant was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was not a previous convict and his father had already died. His mother was an old lady. It is a fact that the appellant has already undergone an actual sentence of more than two years and three months in jail. The present appeal has remained pending in this Court for the last more than twelve years. There was no previous enmity between the parties and the occurrence had erupted all of a sudden on account of the deceased and his brother Mohinder Singh clicking photographs of the marriage party as well as of the boys and girls present there. The present appeal has remained pending in this Court for the last more than twelve years. There was no previous enmity between the parties and the occurrence had erupted all of a sudden on account of the deceased and his brother Mohinder Singh clicking photographs of the marriage party as well as of the boys and girls present there. Though, according to the prosecution, it was the appellant, who had given a push to the deceased from the roof of the house of Rajinder Singh, yet the trial Court in para 8 of the impugned judgment held that it was more probable that the deceased was not pushed by the appellant but he fell from the roof out of fear as he was given a hot chase by the appellant. 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, so as to undergo the remainder of his sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him. 9. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine alongwith its default clause, as imposed by the trial Court, is maintained. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. --------------