JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.9.1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 82/88, whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 308/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo five years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' RI. 2. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place on 7.2.1988 i.e. about 25 years ago from today; the appellants are having marriagable children; they belong to a respectable family; they are not the previously convicted accused persons; and they remained in custody for about 13 days, either they should be given the benefit of probation and if not, then they should be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 3. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 5. Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.L.J. 2061 observed as under: "Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktsar within a period of one month from today. 5000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktsar within a period of one month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation. Appeal dismissed." 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, I do not think it proper to release the appellants on probation, but looking to the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Naib Singh (supra), in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appeal filed by appellants is partly allowed. (ii) The conviction of the appellants is maintained (iii) Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. (iv) The sentence of the accused appellants was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated.Appeal disposed of. *******