JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.10.1987 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar in Sessions Case No.41/83(14/82), whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 304-A IPC to one year's rigorous imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for appellant argued the appeal on merits, but during the course of arguments, being satisfied that on the basis of prosecution evidence, prima-facie offence under Section 304-A IPC is made out against appellant, he did not press the appeal on merits and submitted that maximum sentence prescribed under Section 304-A IPC is only two years imprisonment, therefore, either benefit of probation may be granted to appellant, or, as he remained in jail for nine days from 12.01.1982 to 21.01.1982, his sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him, looking to his age i.e. about 99 years and further that incident relates to the year 1981 i.e. 29 years old. 4. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court. 6. A written report Ex.P2 dated 27.10.1981 was registered at Police Station Bansoor in respect of an incident took place on the same day i.e. 27.10.1981 and on the basis of that written report, chalked FIR No.139/1981 Ex.P6 was registered under Sections 147, 447, 427, 324, 323 and 435 IPC and investigation commenced. 7. After completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet against five accused persons including appellant for the offence under Sections 147, 447, 427, 435, 324, 326 and 304 IPC. The case was committed for trial. The trial Court framed charges against all the five accused persons for the offence under Sections 149, 447, 435, 326 and 302 IPC. 8. During trial, co-accused Bhanwara died and proceedings were dropped against him. Learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment, acquitted remaining three co-accused persons from all the charges levelled against them. Appellant was also acquitted by the trial Court from all the charges except charge under Section 304-A IPC, for which he was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above. 9. 8. During trial, co-accused Bhanwara died and proceedings were dropped against him. Learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment, acquitted remaining three co-accused persons from all the charges levelled against them. Appellant was also acquitted by the trial Court from all the charges except charge under Section 304-A IPC, for which he was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above. 9. From the scrutiny of prosecution evidence and finding of the trial Court, I am satisfied that learned counsel for appellant is right in not pressing the appeal of appellant on merits. So far as grant of probation or reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is not in dispute that the incident in the present case took place on 27.10.1981, therefore, it is 29 years old matter. Age of appellant in the bail application moved before the trial Court was mentioned as 70 years in the year 1981 and on that basis, the learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is 99 years old. In the statement of appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., his age was mentioned as 65 years in the year 1987 and according to it, he must be about 88 years of age. In any circumstance, he is about or above 88 years of age. 10. Offence under Section 304-A IPC is punishable with two years of imprisonment. Although, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, an adequate sentence is required to be imposed in the case, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case that it is 29 years old matter and age of appellant is more than 88 years and further that he is on bail since 1987 i.e. for more than 23 years, therefore, it will not be proper to send him, now, to jail. However, instead of granting benefit of probation, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet if the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court against the appellant is reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. 11. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant under Section 304-A IPC is maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him. He is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.Appeal partly allowed. *******