JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal has been received from the Central Jail, Udaipur. Vide over dated 3.2.2006, this Court appointed Mr. Rajesh Bhati as amicus curiae in order to argue the case on behalf of the appellant. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he does not wise to argue the case on merits. But, he would like to argue this case only with regard to the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. According to him, vide judgment dated 6.12.2005, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Pratapgarh while acquitting the appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C.. had convicted him for offences under Sections 452, 325, 323 I.P.C. For offence under Section 452 I.P.C, the learned Judge had sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment, and had imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, and had directed the appellant to further undergo a period of two months imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 325 I.P.C, the learned Judge had sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment, and had imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, and directed the appellant to further undergo a period of two months of imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 323 I.P.C, he had sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment, and had imposed a fine of Rs. 250/-, and had directed the appellant to further undergo a period of one month of imprisonment in default thereof. 3. The learned counsel contends that the learned trial Court has directed that all the sentences will run consecutively and not concurrently. Therefore, the appellant is bound to undergo a sentence of almost ten years. The learned counsel has pleaded that since all the offences had occurred in a single transaction, the learned Judge ought to have directed that the sentence should run concurrently and not consecutively. Lastly, in case the sentences were directed to run concurrently, the appellant has completed more than five years of sentence, therefore, he would be set at liberty. Therefore, he has.prayed that the impugned judgment be modified to the extent that the sentences should run concurrently, rather than consecutively. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that under Section 427 Cr. P.C., the discretion vests with the learned trial Court to either direct the sentence should run concurrently, or consecutively. Therefore, he has.prayed that the impugned judgment be modified to the extent that the sentences should run concurrently, rather than consecutively. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that under Section 427 Cr. P.C., the discretion vests with the learned trial Court to either direct the sentence should run concurrently, or consecutively. Hence, he has opposed the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The aim of punishment is not to incarceration a person for a long time. The aim of the punishment is to ensure that the offender is reformed and is brought back into the society as a contributory member. While punishing the offender, the learned trial Court has to be sensitive to the nature of the crime and have to be alive to the philosophy behind punishment. In the present case, the learned Judge had acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and had convicted him for offences under Sections 323, 325 and 452 I.P.C. 6. Considering the fact that Section 325 I.P.C. is not an extremely grave offence, considering the fact that the appellant would be incarcerated for ten years, if the sentence were to run consecutively, this Court directs that the sentences awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently and not consecutively. To this limited extent, the judgment dated 6.12.2005 is, hereby, modified. 7. In case, the appellant has completed mere than five years of sentence, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case.Appeal partly allowed. *******