JUDGMENT U.B. Saha , J. The appellants herein seek redressagainst the judgment dated 12.07.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. West Tripura , Agartala in ST 154(WT/S) of 1994/ST 18(ST/B) of 1989 wherein the present appellants were convicted under Sections147/364 of the IPC. Following the conviction under Section 364 read withSection 149 of the IPC, the appellants were sentenced to suffer R.I. for sevenyears and to pay a fine of Rs . 1,000/- each, indefault to suffer further R.I. for three months. The learned Sessions Judgealso sentenced the appellants to suffer R.I. for one year for commission ofoffence under Section 147 of the IPC. It is also ordered that both thesentences will run concurrently. Heard Mr. S. Sarkar ,learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A. Ghosh , learned Public prosecutor appearing for therespondent. 2. The prosecution case, in short,is as follows:-- On 12.05.1989 at about 10/10.30 a.m. deceased Priyalal Shil along with Sribash Bhowmik and Srimanta Majumder was waiting for vehicleat Garage Tilla of Belonia Sub-Division by the side of Belonia Santirbazar road to go to Santirbazar .At that time, a Jeep with some passengers came there from Belonia side and stopped at a little distance from them. Immediately some passengers ofthat Jeep rushed towards them in aggressive manner. Seeing them deceased Priyalal along with Sribash and Srimanta startedrunning towards north. But deceased Priyalal wascaught hold by those miscreants and they abducted him. Sribash along with Srimanta managed to flee away from thatplace by running. On that day Shri Hiralal Shil , who is elderbrother of deceased Priyalal , at about 12.30 pmlodged an oral FIR to the Officer-in-charge of Belonia police station against absconding accused Kala Majumder and 4/5 unknown others narrating the said incidentand on the basis of the said oral FIR, Belonia P.S.Case No. 4(5)/89 u/s. 148/149/364 IPC was registered. On that day at 02-10 pm the dead body of Priyalal Shil was recovered by the Investigating Officer, S.I. Dipak Das from the marshy land of Ballarmukh near Indo-Bangladesh border. 3. After completion ofinvestigation, the I/O submitted the charge sheet against all the accusedpersons under Sections 148/149/364/302 and Section201 of the IPC. Thereafterlearned SDJM, Belonia , South Tripura committed the case to the Court ofAddl. Sessions Judge, Belonia , South Tripura . 4. 3. After completion ofinvestigation, the I/O submitted the charge sheet against all the accusedpersons under Sections 148/149/364/302 and Section201 of the IPC. Thereafterlearned SDJM, Belonia , South Tripura committed the case to the Court ofAddl. Sessions Judge, Belonia , South Tripura . 4. In the course of trial, thelearned trial Court framed the charges against all the accused persons underSections 148/364/302 read with Section 149and Section 201 of the IPC and thecase was adjourned sine die against accused Kala Majumder as he absconded at the trial stage. 5. The charges framed under theaforesaid Sections are as follows:-- Firstly, that all of you on12.5.89 at about 10.30 Hrs. at South Bharat Chandra Nagar under Belonia P.S. were amember of an unlawful assembly and were at that time were armed with deadlyweapon which used as a weapon of offence likely to cause death and therebycommitted an offence punishable u/s. 148 of the IPC and within the cognizanceof this Court of Sessions. Secondly, that you all on the samedate, place and time were a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution oftheir common object to kidnap and murder of Priyalal Shil which offence you know to be likely to be committed inprosecution of the common object of the said assembly and kidnapped andmurdered Priya Lal Shil and you being a member of such assembly at the time ofcommitting murder and kidnapping and thereby guilty of an offence punishableunder Section 364 and under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC andwithin the cognizance of this Court of Sessions. Lastly, that you all on the samedate, time and place knowing that the offence of unlawful assembly with deadlyweapon in prosecution of common object to kidnap and murder of Priya Lal Shil and the kidnapping and murder of Priya Lal Shil punishable withimprisonment of life or hanged till death have been committed caused certainevidence connected with the said offence namely concealing the dead body of Priya Lal Shil the nearby depha of the place of occurrence ofIndo-Bangladesh border of disappear the said dead body with the intention toscreen the offender from legal punishment and thereby committed an offencepunishable u/s. 201 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions. And I do hereby direct that all ofyou shall be tried by me on the said charges. 6. The prosecution examined asmany as 17 witnesses including the official witnesses. And I do hereby direct that all ofyou shall be tried by me on the said charges. 6. The prosecution examined asmany as 17 witnesses including the official witnesses. The defence adduced no evidence and their case is of total denial of the charges .. - 7. After examination of fivewitnesses, as per order of the then Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench dated 23.05.1994 passed in CriminalOriginal Petition No. 57 of 1992, the case was transferred to the Court oflearned Sessions Judge, West Tripura , Agartala from the Court of the learned Addl. SessionsJudge, Belonia , South Tripura .On completion of the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced asstated supra on the basis of the evidence available on record. 8. Mr. Sarkar ,learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that since the scopeof appeal is limited to the question of sentence to be suffered by theappellants, he will confine his argument only on the question of sentence onthe footing that the order of conviction passed against the appellants shallstand upheld by this Court. He has also submitted that the learned trial Courtdisbelieved the prosecution case in so far as the offence under Section 302read with Section 149 and Section 201 of the IPC and consequent theretoacquitted the appellants from the said charges, but ultimately convicted themunder Section 147 and Section 364 read with Section 149 of the IPC. He furthersubmits that there was a political rivalry between the accused appellants andthe deceased which would be evident from paragraph 16 of the impugned judgmentLearned counsel has further submitted that the incident took place in the year1989 and this appeal was preferred in the year 2006. He also submits that fromthe date of conviction the accused-appellants were in custody and they werereleased on bail by this Court on 25.03.2009, meaning thereby, they were incustody for more than three years, out of seven years sentence. He has finallycontended that the appellants are not challenging the order of convictionkeeping in mind that if the sentence is modified from rigorous imprisonment toa sentence of fine then that would meet justice. 9. For modifying the sentence thelearned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a judgment renderedby Delhi High Court in Ram Nath & Anr . v. State , : 1998 Cri . 9. For modifying the sentence thelearned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a judgment renderedby Delhi High Court in Ram Nath & Anr . v. State , : 1998 Cri . L.J. 2622, wherein the Delhi High Court noted inter alia that; In the instant case, the incidenthad taken place about 24 years. The appellants have undergone the rigmarole ofa criminal trial and trauma or criminal proceedings for 24 years. They havealready served out part of the sentence. In my considered opinion, the ends ofjustice shall be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the periodalready undergone. 10. Learned counsel for theappellants also pointed out that in Ram Nath (supra) theDelhi High Court took note of the decision of the Apex Court in B.G. Goswami v.Delhi Administration, 1974 Cri . L.J. 243, wherein the Apex Court observed asunder:-- Now the question of sentence isalways a difficult question requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with ajudicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The mainpurpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realize that hehas committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he formsan integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individualand as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society bydeterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party fromrepeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaimhim as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole.Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their duepart in judicial thinking while determining the question. In modern civilizedsocieties, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greaterimportance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both lose theirefficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby makingthe offender a hardened criminal. In modern civilizedsocieties, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greaterimportance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both lose theirefficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby makingthe offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing theconsiderations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellantback to jail now after seven years of the agony and harassment of theseproceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living forhimself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel thatit would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment tothat already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs . 200/- to Rs . 400/-. Period ofimprisonment in case of default will remain the same. 11. Learned counsel for theappellants also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC2121, wherein the Apex Court took note of B.G. Goswami (supra) and the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period alreadyundergone in a case where the accused was convicted under Section 161 of theIPC and Section 5(1 )( d) read with Section 5(2)of thePrevention of Corruption Act. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in Isub Ali v. State of Tripura ,:2007 (3) GLT 962, wherein the conviction under Section 304 Part II was upheldbut sentence was reduced to the period already undergone in custody with a fineof Rs . 15,000/-. Thus, in the instant case alsoconsidering the fact that the incident happened in the year 1989 and theaccused-appellants had suffered since then, it would not be proper to send themback in jail custody taking note of the decision of B.G. Goswami (supra), wherein the Apex Court specifically held that the main purpose of thesentence broadly stated is that the accused must realize that he has committedan act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integralpart but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as amember of the society. 12. Mr. Ghosh ,learned P.P. though initially not agreed to the contention of Mr. 12. Mr. Ghosh ,learned P.P. though initially not agreed to the contention of Mr. Sarkar , but ultimately submitted that when the State didnot prefer any appeal against the order of acquittal from the charges underSections 302/201/149 of the IPC and the accused-appellants had already sufferedsentence of imprisonment for more than three years, the Court can consider formodification of the sentence to the extent the accused appellants had alreadyundergone with a fine of Rs . 2,50,000/-, i.e., Rs . 50,000/- each. 13. Speedy trial and getting earlyjustice is a Constitutional right of a citizen. In the instant case, though thecase was initiated in the year 1989, but the trial was completed in the year2006 and since then the appeal is pending before this Court. Thus, this courtis of the considered opinion that it would be proper to uphold the conviction,which is also not questioned by Mr. Sarkar , andmodify the sentence. This Court is in total agreement with the submission ofMr. Sarkar that sentence is not only to punish aperson rather to allow him to realize what wrong he has committed so that infuture he should not commit the same type of offence. 14. Mr. Ghosh , learned P.P. thoughsubmitted for modifying the sentence to the period already undergone by theaccused-appellants with a fine of Rs . 50,000/- each,this Court is of the opinion that the fine would be in higher side. The trialCourt has discussed the facts in details as well as the evidence on record andthe law Reports cited. Thus, it is not required for this Court to reiterate thesame when the order of conviction is upheld by this Court. 15. After giving anxiousconsideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and also to thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that theincident which had happened in the year 1989 in village Garage Tilla of Belonia Sub-Division isextremely shocking and this Court only wishes that there may not be repetitionof such incident. As Mr. 15. After giving anxiousconsideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and also to thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that theincident which had happened in the year 1989 in village Garage Tilla of Belonia Sub-Division isextremely shocking and this Court only wishes that there may not be repetitionof such incident. As Mr. Sarkar informed this Courtthat one of the accused-appellants by this time completed his education and atpresent practicing as a Lawyer and the other accused-appellants have become thesmall businessmen and they are now living with their family members after beingreleased on bail and that they are not the habitual offenders and has sufferedthree years imprisonment after the order of conviction, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that it would be proper to modify the sentence. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaidfacts and circumstances, the impugned order of conviction is upheld and thesentence is modified to the period already undergone by the accused-appellantswith a fine of Rs . 25,000/- each, in default ofpayment of fine, the accused-appellants shall suffer the sentence as passed bythe learned trial Court. The fine money shall be deposited with the learnedtrial Court within a period of three months from today. 17. In K. Duraiswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu , AIR 1982 SC 51 , the ApexCourt while considering the order of conviction and sentence of the appellanttook note of the fact that the appellant was a Government servant and by virtueof his conviction he has lost his service and is also likely to lose his pensionary benefits and he has already served three monthsand upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to the period alreadyserved, which according to the appellant is about three months, and in lieu ofthe sentence, imposed a fine of Rs . 500/-, in defaultthree months’ rigorous imprisonment and also ordered that the fine money bepaid within two months from the date of order and the entire fine moneyrealized would be paid to the temple. In re: Tapan Roy & Ors., 1997 Cri.L.J .2166, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court also passed an order inter alia that the fine money realized shall be paid to theRegistrar. A.S. to Bharat Sevashram Sangha for utilizingthe same for charitable or relief purposes. 18. In re: Tapan Roy & Ors., 1997 Cri.L.J .2166, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court also passed an order inter alia that the fine money realized shall be paid to theRegistrar. A.S. to Bharat Sevashram Sangha for utilizingthe same for charitable or relief purposes. 18. From the decision referred inthe preceding paragraph, it can be said that in exceptional cases where neitherthe victim nor the parents of the said victim are available to receive the finemoney as compensation then the said fine money can be provided either to aninstitution acting for philanthropic purposes or any other similar nature ofinstitutions, which are sheltering and supporting the destitute. 19. It appears from the recordthat the parents of the deceased are no longer in the world, only some of hisrelatives are there. Thus, if the fine money is deposited by the accusedappellants, that should be remitted to an Orphan Home, namely, ’ Amadher Ghar ’, run by the SocialWelfare and Social Education Department, Government of Tripura ,through the Secretary to the Government of Tripura ,Social Welfare and Social Education Department, wherein the orphan children aregiven shelter. The fine money on being deposited by the accused-appellants,their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 20. If the fine money is notdeposited within the stipulated period, then the accused-appellants shallsurrender before the learned trial Court just after completion of three monthsfrom today. If the accused-appellants are not surrendered, then the learnedtrial Court shall take all necessary steps for taking them into custody toserve out the remaining period of sentence. 21. In the result, the appeal ispartly allowed. Send down the lower court records forthwith.