JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J.:- This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 7/8.10.1999 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (hereinafter referred as ‘Trial Court’) convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused injuries with ‘kirch’, a sharp edged weapon, to Chhinder Kaur with an intention to cause her death. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution as projected in para 2 of the trial Court judgment is as under: That on 17.11.1995 one QST message was received in police station Badhni Kalan from Police Station City Moga-II on which the police party from Badhni Kalan reached the police station Moga-II and collected the MLR of Chhinder Kaur injured and that of Gurnam Singh. Thereafter, the police party went to Civil Hospital, Moga where HC Bhag Mal PW gave application Exhibit PD/1 to the doctor and the doctor gave an opinion Exhibit PD that she was unfit. On 18.11.95, PW8 Bhag Mal again went to Civil Hospital, Moga and gave application, Exhibit PL, but again vide opinion Exhibit PL/1, she was declared unfit. Sukhmander Singh PW was present in the hospital. His statement Exhibit PG was recorded which was read over to him and he signed the same in token of its correctness. The statement Exhibit PG of PW3 Sukhmander Singh on the basis of which case was registered is as follows: “I am resident of village Butter and am an agriculturist. Yesterday, on 17.17.95, I along with my wife Chhinder Kaur went to the house of my co-brother (Sandhu) Balbir Singh son of Gurnam Singh as my son was not well to borrow scooter as my scooter had gone out of order. Balbir Singh was not present in his house but my sister-in-law Harpal Kaur alias Palo was present. While we were asking her to take the scooter, Gurnam Singh father of Balbir Singh who was residing with his other son Harbans Singh separately, came along with Harbans Singh @ Bhola raising abuses, to the house of Balbir Singh. They started abusing me and my wife and said as to why we had gone to their house. While we were asking her to take the scooter, Gurnam Singh father of Balbir Singh who was residing with his other son Harbans Singh separately, came along with Harbans Singh @ Bhola raising abuses, to the house of Balbir Singh. They started abusing me and my wife and said as to why we had gone to their house. We told them that we had come to borrow scooter, on this Harbans Singh abused and said that today we will not be left on which Gurnam Singh with his ‘Krich’ which he had brought along while coming from his house attacked my wife which hit Chhinder Kaur in her stomach on the left side. I along with my wife and my sister-in-law raised alarm ‘Marditta’, on which people from the locality gathered. Harbans Singh and Gurnam Singh along with ‘Kirch’ ran from the spot while abusing. At that time, it was 11.00 am. The motive for the occurrence is that about 4-5 months earlier my brother Rajinder Singh had a fight with Gurnam Singh regarding which the relatives and villagers had got effected the compromise. Keeping that grievance in heart. Gurnam Singh had inflicted injuries on the person of my wife. Thereafter, I arranged a vehicle and took my wife Chhinder Kaur for treatment to civil Hospital, Moga where she was admitted and she is under treatment. During the dispute, Gurnam Singh might have received some injuries on his hand while snatching kirch from him. Heard statement and affirmed as correct.” 3. After recording the said statement, Exhibit PG, Head Constable Bhag Mal made his endorsement on the same and sent the same to the Police Station City Moga and on its basis formal FIR, Exhibit PG/1, was recorded by ASI Malkiat Singh under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He also recorded the statement of Gurnam Singh son of Bichan Singh, who was admitted in Civil Hospital, Moga but separate case was not registered. After completion of investigation, Joginder Singh, SHO, Police Station Badhni Kalan submitted the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Co-accused Harbans Singh was not challaned and his name was kept in column No.2 as he was found innocent during investigation. 4. Accused-appellant Gurnam Singh was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Co-accused Harbans Singh was not challaned and his name was kept in column No.2 as he was found innocent during investigation. 4. Accused-appellant Gurnam Singh was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused-appellant, the prosecution has examined Dr.Tejinder Gupta as PW1, Balwinder Singh as PW2, Sukhmander Singh as PW3, Chhinder Kaur as PW4, Gursewak Singh, draftsman as PW5, Head Constable Dagambar Singh as PW6, Dr.Navraj Singh as PW7, Head Constable Bhag Mal as PW8, Constable Sukhmander Singh as PW9, ASI Harvinder Singh as PW10 and Head Constable Kuldeep Kumar as PW11. 6. Statement of the accused-appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations of the prosecution. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for a term as noticed in para No.1 of this judgment. 8. Hence this appeal. 9. The present appeal was admitted on 1.11.1999 and the sentence of the appellant was also suspended. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellant. 12. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 18.11.1995. Thus, the appellant, by now, has suffered protracted trial for 15 years. The appellant has already undergone sentence for about 22 days. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as “R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another” observed as under:- “26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment” 14. In another case titled as “Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana”, 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents. 2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly”. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the reduction of sentence/imprisonment to the extent already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice. 16. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him. The sentence of fine awarded to the appellant is, however, enhanced to Rs.25,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the learned trial Court. 16. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him. The sentence of fine awarded to the appellant is, however, enhanced to Rs.25,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the learned trial Court. He shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. In case, the appellant fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, within the period stipulated above, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 18. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ------------