JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 3.2.1989 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Hanumangarh camp at Suratgarh in Sessions Case No. 60/1985, convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as follows : Accused-Appellant Ram Lal - for offences punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. - 4 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further 2 months' rigorous imprisonment. for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act - 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further 2 months' rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently Accused-appellant Banwari Lal - for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. - 4 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further 2 months' rigorous imprisonment 3. The concise facts of the case are that on 16.6.1985 Bhagirath made an oral information at Police Station Pilibanga, inter alia, stating that his brothers Hari Ram and Mohan Lal both live jointly and on that morning, it was their turn to take water (for irrigation). The informant (Bhagirath), Hari Ram, Mohan Lal and their partner Ashok Kumar, all four went to fields for taking up the water. In the day, at about 12.30 PM, while Mohan Lal was taking up the water for his field then Ram Lal, Girdhari Lal and.Banwari Lal came there. Ram Lal was armed with 12 bore gun, Girdhari had a pistol and Banwari was armed with a 'gandasi' (sharp-edged agriculture cutting-tool). All there warned that they will not allow to take up the water. We said that it is our turn to take up water thereupon Banwari Lal inflicted Gandasi blow on the head of Hari Ram to kill him, Ram Lal fired towards Mohan Lal to kill him, which shot in his back while he was running to save himself. He then shot one more fire. Girdhari also fired from the pistol. These three persons inflicted other injuries also. Upon hearing hue and cry, our neighbour Sahab Ram came to the spot. He challenged them whereupon these three persons ran away. 4. He then shot one more fire. Girdhari also fired from the pistol. These three persons inflicted other injuries also. Upon hearing hue and cry, our neighbour Sahab Ram came to the spot. He challenged them whereupon these three persons ran away. 4. Upon this oral information, Police registered F.I.R. No. 89/1985 (Ex.P- 1) for offence under Sections 307, 430, 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and commenced investigation. During, the course of investigation, accused persons - Ram Lal, Girdhari Lal and Banwari Lal were arrested vide Ex.P-9, Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11. After due investigation, challan was filed against accused-persons for offence under Sections 307, 326/34 324 I.P.C. and Sections 25, 27 of the Indian Arms Act in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, which was then committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh camp at Suratgarh. On 10.9.1985 charges for aforesaid offence were framed against accused-persons, they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on the charges. 5. During trial, the prosecution supported its case with the aid of 8 witnesses and also exhibited 32 documents. The statements of accused-persons were recorede under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication in the matter. In defence, they produced three witnesses-DW-1 Chandu Ram S/o Parmanand Jat, DW-2 - Ashok Kumar S/o Bhajan Lal Nai and DW-3 - Dr. Ashok Gupta. 6. After hearing the arguments for the learned counsel for the parties and upon scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as also by the defence, the trial Court vide judgment dated 3.2.1989 convicted and sentenced accused-appellants - Ram Lal and Banwari Lal while acquitting accused-Girdhari from the charge. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court, the accused-appellant has filed present appeal before this Court. 8. In appeal, learned counsel for the accused-appellants firstly argued the appeal on merits and submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in holding the accused-appellants guilt for the offences mentioned above and sentencing them to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine. Further, learned trial Judge also erred in placing reliance upon the prosecution story whereas the story as alleged by the prosecution is fully unnatural and unreliable. Further, learned trial Judge also erred in placing reliance upon the prosecution story whereas the story as alleged by the prosecution is fully unnatural and unreliable. Learned trial Court failed to take into consideration important aspect of the case that it was complainant party who was aggressor in the matter. 9. It is further stated that Om Prakash, Head Constable, who registered the F.I.R., has not been produced by the prosecution intentionally. This has created doubt about correctness of the First Information Report. The F.I.R. was sent to the concerned Magistrate with delay and it also creates doubt about authenticity of the report. Learned trial Judge has also observed that the F.I.R. reached late. 10. Learned counsel for accused appellants then submitted that the recovery of empty cartridges cases from the spot is not helpful to the prosecution. As a matter of fact, pellets found from Body of injured Mohan Lal could not have been fired from recovered empty shells. The consistency in the recovery memos also throws serious doubt upon veracity of the prosecution story. There is no independent witness produced by the prosecution although same were available to the prosecution. 11. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge erred in not accepting plea of self-defence made by the accused-appellants. From the statement of defence-witness - Ashok Kumar (DW-2), who was admittedly eye-witness of the occurrence, the prosecution story stands falsified and the defence versions stands highly probabilized. 12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further contended that no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the accused-appellants. as per statement of PW-6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta and PW-7 Kailash Nath and also injury report (Ex.P-19) of injured Hari Ram, his X-ray report (Ex.P-20), injury report (Ex.21) of injured Mohan Lal and his X-ray report (Ex.P-22), no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the accused-appellants because the appellants had no intention to commit murder of the injured persons. 13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submitted that the statements of prosecution witnesses are unnatural and contradictory to each other, which can inspire no confidence in the mind of any person. Intention of accused-persons cannot be culled out by holistic appreciation of evidence. Both the parties are neighbour and have their fields right next to each other. The incident occurred all of a sudden. Intention of accused-persons cannot be culled out by holistic appreciation of evidence. Both the parties are neighbour and have their fields right next to each other. The incident occurred all of a sudden. Bona fide dispute about turn for supply of water to their respective fields was there. There was no premeditation, no animosity existed between the parties and thus, Intention of the accused appellants was not to cause death but intention was merely to cause harm to the complainant party. 14. It is also contended that looking to nature of the injuries and all other facts and circumstances and the medical evidence, it is apparent that there is no evidence. that in ordinary course of nature, those injuries can cause death of a person, hence, offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out. 15. Finally, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that this appeal is pending since 1989 and therefore, he does not want to press the appeal on merits and submitted that looking to age of accused-appellant Ram Lal, who is more than 80 years of age by now and accused-appellant Banwari Lal is also 50 years of age, and further the fact that the incident pertains of year 1985 i.e. more than 26 years ago as also fact that the Doctor has not opined that these injuries were sufficient to cause death of the injured persons in ordinary course of nature, conviction of the accused-appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. was not justified. 16. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submitted that co-accused Girdhari has been acquitted by the trial Court and so one part of the prosecution story is not found to be correct by the trial Court itself. It is also submitted that since then compromise has been arrived at between complainant and the accused-persons. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused-appellants may either be granted benefit of probation, this being their first offence or, in the alternative, the punishment being too harsh, deserves to be considered sympathetically and may favourably be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-appellants. 17. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused-appellants may either be granted benefit of probation, this being their first offence or, in the alternative, the punishment being too harsh, deserves to be considered sympathetically and may favourably be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-appellants. 17. After perusal of the file, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the accused-appellants Ram Lal has remained in custody from 19.6.1985 to 20.5.1986 i.e. for about 11 months and then from 3.2.1989 to 18.3.1989 i.e. for one month and 15 days - total for more than one year. The accused-appellant Banwari Lal has remained in custody from 19.6.1985 to 18.7.1986 i.e. for about 13 months and then from 3.2.1989 to 18.3.1989 i.e. for one month and 15 days-total for 14 months and 15 days, during the course of investigation and the trial. During the trial as also during pendency of present appeal, both the accused-appellants have been on bail. 18. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the Court below and contended that the findings arrived by the trial Court on the basis of evidence of prosecution is correct. There is no infirmity or material contradiction, as such, it does not calls for any interference by this Court. He argued that the accused-appellants came armed with deadly weapons, with intention to kill injured persons-Hari Ram and Mohan Lal. Their intention is obvious from the facts of the case. 19. According to the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta and PW-7 Kailash Nath (Radiologist), injured Hari Ram suffered 3 injuries-one on back side of Left hand, one on fronto-parietal region and one on the chest while injured Banwari Lal Sustained 2 injuries - one on Left parietal region and the other lacerated wound by firm-arm, in chest-wall posterior on the Left side. So offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is clearly made out. Learned Public Prosecutor, thus, supported the judgment impugned passed by the Court below. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, he has not seriously opposed prayer of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants regarding reduction of sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused-appellants. 20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment as also record of the Court below. 21. 20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment as also record of the Court below. 21. In view of evidence of injured Hari Ram (PW-2), injured Mohan Lal (PW-3), informant Bhagirath (PW-1) and the medical evidence by Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (PW-6) and Radiologist Kailash Nath (PW-7), it is proved that injury No. 2 to injured Hari Ram, which was on his left parietal bone, was grievous in nature. Likewise, injury No. 1 of injured Mohan Lal, which is also on his head, was grievous in nature. Firearm and sharp-edged weapon 'gangdasa' were used in the assauls. So, in the totality of prosecution evidence, I do not find anything wrong in the finding given by the learned trial Court and find that the Court below was totally justified in holding the accused-appellants guilty of committing the offence as alleged.' 22. From the scrutiny of prosecution evidence and the findings given by the Court below, I am satisfied that learned counsel for the accused-appellants is right in not pressing the present appeal for the accused-appellants 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 1985 i.e. the matter is 26 years old. Injured Hari Ram (PW-2) has sustained fracture on Left Parietal bone and frontal bone on the Right side (ExP20) besides injuries described in Ex.P-19 while injured Mohan Lal suffered fracture on left parietal bone (Ex.P-22) as also firearm injury (Ex.P-21), as per evidence of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (PW-6) and Radiologist Kailash Nath (PW-7), During the course of Investigation, trial and pendency of present appeal, the accused-appellant Ram Lal has remained in custody for a period of one year and 15 days while accused-appellant Banwari Lal has been behind the bars of 14 months and 15 days. Both the accused-persons have been facing trial for quite long time since the year 1985. 23. 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 1985 and for last 26 years, the accused-appellant and the complainats have been co-existing peacefully as good neighbours. Both the accused-persons have been facing trial for quite long time since the year 1985. 23. 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 1985 and for last 26 years, the accused-appellant and the complainats have been co-existing peacefully as good neighbours. The offence committed by the accused-appellants is their first offence as per record and since accused-appellant Ram Lal is now in advance age of 80 years while accused-appellant Banwari Lal is also 50 years old person. The punishment, to be effective, must be sufficient and insufficient punishment is greater evil than an excess of rigour for an insufficient punishment is an evil fully thrown away, no good results can be expected either from public who are left exposed to the like offence nor to the offender who it makes no better. Jurists have formulated following principles regarding punishment: (1) An excessive punishment, instead of being a deterrent, often results in the generation of an angry public contempt of justice because of its severity, and does not reform the criminal who perceives injustice towards himself. (2) Severity of sentence is far less effective as deterrent to crime than certainty of detection and sentence. (3) Severity of punishment alone will never permanently solve the crime problem, but imposition of a series of severe sentence frequent temporarily at least, tends to suppress a local crime wave. 24. 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. "It is true that modern criminology does not encourage the imposition of severe or savage sentences against criminals because the deterrent or punitive aspects of punishment is no longer treated as a valid consideration in the administration of criminal law. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, AIR 1960 SC 224 for ordinary crimes although some special crimes have been excluded. "It is true that modern criminology does not encourage the imposition of severe or savage sentences against criminals because the deterrent or punitive aspects of punishment is no longer treated as a valid consideration in the administration of criminal law. But it must be remembered that ordinary offences with which the normal criminal law of the country deals committed by persons either under the pressure it provoked and unbalanced emotions, or as a result of adverse environments and circumstances, and so, while dealing with these criminals who, in many cases deserved a sympathetic treatment and in a few cases, are mere sinned against than sinners, criminal law treats punishment more as a reformative or corrective than as a deterrent or punitive measure." 25. The purpose of the Court is not merely to punish the accused persons but also to ensure that harmony be maintained with the society. As per contention of learned counsel for the accused-appellants there is compromise between the rival parties and they are neighbour of agriculture field adjacent to each other and since after the incident, they have been peacefully cultivating their respective fields, therefore, it will not be proper now to send them again in judicial custody after such long period i.e. after 26 years. Considering the fact that further incarceration of the accused-appellants would not achieve any beneficial purpose, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court against the accused-appellants to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. 26. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of accused-appellant Ram Lal for offences punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the conviction of accused-appellant Banwari Lal for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., are maintained. However, their respective sentences, awarded by the Court below by impugned judgment dated 3.2.1989 are reduced to the period, of imprisonment already undergone by them. Both the accused-appellants are directed to deposit fine of Rs. 5000/- each with the Court, within a period of 3 months from today. 27. Upon deposit of fine by the accused-appellants, Rs. 5000/- each will be given to injured Hari Ram and injured Mohan Lal respectively, as compensation. Both the accused-appellants are directed to deposit fine of Rs. 5000/- each with the Court, within a period of 3 months from today. 27. Upon deposit of fine by the accused-appellants, Rs. 5000/- each will be given to injured Hari Ram and injured Mohan Lal respectively, as compensation. In default of payment of the fine aforesaid, both the accused-appellants shall undergo further one year's rigorous imprisonment each. 28. Both the accused-appellants are on bail and they need not to surrender. After due compliance of aforesaid directions, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.Appeal partly allowed. *******