JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J.:- This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 20.3.2002 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur (for short “Trial Court”) convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused grievous injury on the head of Bharpur Singh with the help of gandasa with an intention to kill him. Accordingly, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in para 2 of the Trial Court judgment, are re-produced as under: “On 19.8.1998, police of Police Station Amargarh received message regarding admission of injured Bharpur Singh in Civil Hospital, Malerkotla. That then HC Surinder Pal Singh along with other police official reached Civil Hospital, Malerkotla and sought the opinion of the doctor. However, the concerned doctor declared injured Bharpur Singh unfit to make the statement. Again on 20.8.1998 HC Surinder Pal Singh sought opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of injured to make statement. On which the concerned doctor reported that patient has been sent for C.T. Scan to Ludhiana. That even on 21.8.1998 injured was declared unfit to make statement by the concerned doctor. That on that day, father of the injured, namely, Gurdev Singh was present in the hospital who got recorded his statement to the effect that he is resident of village Chokran. That on 18.8.1998, at about 11.00 p.m., he, his son Bharpur Singh and his neighbour Roop Singh were standing in the street and were talking. That at that time, electric bulb outside his house was on. In the meantime, accused Gursewak Singh son of Harminder Singh armed with Gandasa came out of his house and started walking towards them. That when Gursewak Singh just crossed them, he suddenly took turn and gave gandasa blow on the head of Bharpur Singh with intention to kill him. That as a result of this, Bharpur Singh fell on the ground and he became unconscious. That immediately accused ran away from the spot along with his weapon. That complainant immediately took the injured to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla in the Maruti van of Roop Singh, where injured was medico legally examined. That as a result of this, Bharpur Singh fell on the ground and he became unconscious. That immediately accused ran away from the spot along with his weapon. That complainant immediately took the injured to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla in the Maruti van of Roop Singh, where injured was medico legally examined. That motive behind the occurrence was that few days back accused and injured Bharpur Singh quarrelled with each other but the matter was compromised with the intervention of panchayat.” 3. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, viz., Dr.MP Garg, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Malerkotla as PW1; Dr.Charanjit Singh, Civil Hospital, Malerkotla as PW2; Dr.Suresh Kumar Singla, SMO, Civil Hospital, Sangrur as PW3; Surinder Pal Singh as PW4; Palwinder Singh as PW5; Constable Bhupinder Singh as PW6; Harpal Singh, Senior Assistant as PW7; injured Bharpur Singh as PW8; complainant Gurdev Singh as PW9; Constable Naib Singh as PW10; ASI Baljinder Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case as PW11; Head Constable Sukhdev Singh as PW12; PHC Kuljinder Singh as PW13 and Dr.Gurneet Singh, Radiologist, Arora Neuro Centre, Ludhiana as PW14. 5. Accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he pleaded his false implication due to enmity with Mukhtiar Singh. Accused-appellant in his defence examined Gurdev Singh as DW1 and Bhan Singh as DW2. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed in para No.1 of this judgment. 7. Hence this appeal. 8. The present appeal was admitted on 22.3.2002 and the accusedappellant was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 2.7.2002. 9. 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. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the State has produced copy of custody certificate and submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellant. 11. 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. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the State has produced copy of custody certificate and submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellant. 11. 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. 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” 12. 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”. 13. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 21.8.1998. The appellant has suffered protracted trial for 12 years. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly”. 13. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 21.8.1998. The appellant has suffered protracted trial for 12 years. As per custody certificate, which is taken on record, the appellant has already undergone 7 months and 20 days. He has not misused the concession of bail. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the reduction of sentence/imprisonment to the extent already undergone by the appellant will meet the ends of justice. 15. 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. To assuage the feeling of wrong done by the appellant, the complainant-injured deserves to be compensated. Accordingly, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court. He shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of fine of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of Rs.40,000/- shall be paid to the complainant-injured as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the State as litigation expenses. 16. In case, the appellant fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the concerned court 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. 17. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ------------