JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision petition under section 397(1) read with section 401 CrPC has been filed against the order dated 21st December 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Cr. Appeal No.34/1986 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the accused-appellant Pritam Singh filed against the judgment & order dated 02nd August 1986 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumagarh in Original Cr. Case No.282/1983, State v. Pritam Singh & others , whereby the revision-petitioner Pritam Singh was convicted for offence punishable under section 326 IPC and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two & half months. He was also convicted under section 323 IPC and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. 3. Initially, present petitioner Pritam Singh was accused in the matter along with Jeet Ram s/o Dula Ram and Mansha Singh s/o Jagan Singh. All the accused persons were convicted for offence under section 323 IPC while accused persons Pritam Singh and Jeet Ram were convicted for offence under sections 326 and 326/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 4. Accused persons Pritam Singh and Jeet Ram appealed against their conviction and sentence, wherein learned appellate court accepted appeal of Jeet Ram and acquitted him of the charge of offence under sections 326/34 and 323 IPC and set aside his conviction and sentence but rejected the appeal of present revisioner-accused. Now, present petition is preferred by remaining accused-petitioner Pritam Singh. 5. Brief facts of the case are that a oral complaint was filed by Karnail Singh on 28.02.1981 at Police Station, Hanumangarh Town, inter alia, stating that he had gone to Bhompura to meet Hari Singh Dhanak. The day before, during daytime, when he and Hari Singh both were going to Bus Stand, then Pritam Singh and Jeet Ram were sitting there - Jeet Ram was having a lathi while Pritam Singh was armed with 'gandasi' while Mansha Singh was coming after them, having a lathi. As soon they reached near the Bus Stand, Pritam Singh and Jeet Ram attacked upon them. Pritam Singh inflicted 'gandasi' blow, he raised his hand to defend and his right hand thumb got cut injury and a dismal injury was also suffered in his head. As soon they reached near the Bus Stand, Pritam Singh and Jeet Ram attacked upon them. Pritam Singh inflicted 'gandasi' blow, he raised his hand to defend and his right hand thumb got cut injury and a dismal injury was also suffered in his head. Jeet Ram inflicted lathi blow on his right shoulder and Pritam Singh also inflicted 'gandasi' blow on his shoulder, thereby he fell down. Manshi Singh inflicted a blow upon Hari Singh from behind and caused lathi blow on his chest from front. 6. Upon raising hue & cry by them, Lal Chand and Begraj rushed towards them and alarmed the assailants, whereupon they left them by threatening that if they will go anywhere, they will be killed. They remained wandering around their house. On the basis of this oral complaint, FIR No.41/1981 was registered and investigation was started. During investigation, complainant and Hari Singh were got medically examined and their statements were recorded. 7. After due investigation, challan was filed against accused persons and learned trial court framed charge under sections 326, 323 IPC against accused-petitioner Pritam Singh while under section 326/34 and section 323 IPC against the accused Jeet Ram and Mansha Singh. All accused persons denied the aforesaid charges and claimed trial. 8. After due trial, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused persons Jeet Ram and Pritam Singh for the offences under sections 326/34, 326 and 323 IPC and accused Mansha Singh for the offence under section 323 IPC. Upon appeal by Jeet Ram and Pritam Singh, vide impugned judgment dated 21st December 1995, learned appellate court accepted appeal of Jeet Ram and acquitted him of the charge and set aside his conviction while dismissed appeal of the accused-petitioner Pritam Singh; hence, present Revision Petition. 9. In the present Revision Petition, though initially learned counsel for the accused-petitioner reiterated the grounds as urged before the appellate court below, however, in view of facts, circumstances and evidence on record, he chose not to press the revision petition on merits and submitted that the incident pertains to the year 1981, the accused petitioner has been facing trial since then i.e. for around 30 years and he has been sentenced for one year's rigorous imprisonment. 10. 10. With these submissions, learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that the accused-petitioner has been behind the bars from 05th March 1981 to 10th March 1981 (6 days) and thereafter from 21st December 1995 to 18th January 1986 (28 days) i.e. 34 days in all and in the facts and circumstances, the sentenced imposed upon the accused-petitioner may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of this Court, rendered in the case of Bhupendra Singh & anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (6) WLC (Raj.) 135 and in the case of Kalyan and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 (2) RCC 721 , wherein accused-persons were facing trial for so many years, with a view to serve ends of justice, the sentence imposed upon the accused persons was modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone in those cases. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Revision Petition but not seriously. 12. From the scrutiny of prosecution evidence and the findings given by the court below, I am satisfied that learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is right in not pressing the present petition on merits. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is not in dispute that the incident in the present case took place in the year 1981 i.e. the matter is 30 years old. The complainant-injured Karnail Singh has suffered sole injury on his right thumb. During the course of investigation, trial and pendency of present appeal, the accused-appellant Pritam Singh has remained behind the bars for 34 days, as aforesaid and he has been facing trial for quite long time since the year 1981. 13. The punitive theory of punishment and deterrent theory of punishment have left their force considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 1981 and for last 30 years and the accused-petitioner and the complainants have been co-existing peacefully. Jurists have formulated some principles regarding punishment and these recent trends have been recognised and approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd v. Jasjit Singh, AIR 1960 SC 224 for ordinary crimes although some special crimes have been excluded. 14. Jurists have formulated some principles regarding punishment and these recent trends have been recognised and approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd v. Jasjit Singh, AIR 1960 SC 224 for ordinary crimes although some special crimes have been excluded. 14. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the present case the incident occurred as back in the year 1981 i.e. more than 30 years ago, the accused-petitioner had been facing trial for quite long time and he has remained in jail for 34 days. The purpose of court is not merely to punish the accused person but also to ensure that harmony be maintained with the society, therefore, it will not be proper now to send him again in jail after such long period. This view was followed by this Court in Nagji & anr v. State of Raj., 1980 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 244 . 15. Thus, considering the fact that further incarceration of the accused-petitioner would not achieve any beneficial purpose, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the trial court to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-petitioner. 16. In the result, I maintain the order of conviction passed by the courts below against the revision-petitioner but looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone confinement for 34 days, as aforesaid; the ends of justice would be met in sentencing him for the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 17. Consequently, the revision petition filed by accused Pritam Singh is partly accepted, the conviction of accused petitioner- Pritam Singh s/o Dula Ram, by caste- Harijan, r/o village- Bhompura, Tehsil & District- Hanumangarh under section 326 & 323 IPC is maintained but the sentence awarded to the revision-petitioner is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 18. The accused-petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards compensation to the injured, in addition to amount of fine of Rs. 250/- imposed by the learned trial court within a period of three months from today. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the complainant-injured Karnail Singh; in default of payment, he shall undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 19. The accused-petitioner is on bail. 250/- imposed by the learned trial court within a period of three months from today. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the complainant-injured Karnail Singh; in default of payment, he shall undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 19. The accused-petitioner is on bail. Upon compliance of aforesaid directions, his bail bonds, consequently, shall stand discharged and he need not to surrender.Revision partly allowed. *******