Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J. Present appeal has been filed by accused appellant Ashok Kumar under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 1.4.2008 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No.6, Ghaziabad in S.T. No.216 of 1994 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.147 of 1989, under sections 307, 393 I.P.C., Police Station Masoori, District Ghaziabad, where by learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No.6, Ghaziabad has convicted accused appellant for offences punishable under sections 307 and 393 I.P.C. and has sentenced him for offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. with rigorous imprisonment for nine years and fine of Rs.5000/- and for offence punishable under section 393 I.P.C. with rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2000/-. Learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No.6, Ghaziabad has further ordered that in default of payment of fine for first offence accused appellant shall undergo further imprisonment for six months and in default of payment of fine for second offence he shall further undergo imprisonment for two months. Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and Shri Yogesh Srivastava appeared for accused appellant. Learned A.G.A. appeared for State of U.P. I have heard learned counsel for both parties and have gone through record of the case. In brief prosecution version is that on 18.11.1989 informant Shivraj Singh and his brother Ravindra Singh, uncle Harpal Singh and Yogendra were doing work in their fields. At about 1.00 P.M. three persons came on patri (pathway) of canal with motorcycle and stopped motorcycle near their fields. At the same time two of them attempted to kill third person by throttling him. After having heard noise informant, his brother Ravindra Singh, uncle Harpal Singh and Yogendra rushed to rescue him. Three or four persons of the village also came on spot. All of them caught said two assailants after causing them necessary injuries and rescued the victim. Thereafter the victim disclosed his name as Pankaj Singh with address and assailants disclosed their names as Ashok Kumar and Pappu with address mentioned in F.I.R. At the same time victim Pankaj Singh told that said assailants Ashok Kumar and Pappu were making attempt to murder him in order of committing robbery of his motorcycle. Thereafter the victim disclosed his name as Pankaj Singh with address and assailants disclosed their names as Ashok Kumar and Pappu with address mentioned in F.I.R. At the same time victim Pankaj Singh told that said assailants Ashok Kumar and Pappu were making attempt to murder him in order of committing robbery of his motorcycle. Thereafter informant as well as persons accompanying him brought victim and said two assailants to police station Masoori and complainant lodged oral F.I.R whereupon chick F.I.R. Exhibit Ka.1 was written and Crime No.147 of 1989, under sections 307, 393 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Masoori. Thereafter investigation was started by police and after having completed investigation police submitted charge sheet against two assailants for aforesaid offences whereupon Magistrate concerned took cognizance and committed the case of accused appellant to the court of session for trial. Learned Additional Session Judge framed charges against accused appellant for offences punishable under sections 307 and 393 I.P.C. Accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.W.1 complainant Shyoraj, P.W.2 Pankaj Singh, P.W.3 S.I. Dalveer Singh, P.W.4 Dr. Jai Prakash and P.W.5 Inspector Vijay Kumar Yadav. After prosecution evidence statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement recorded under 313 Cr.P.C. accused appellant has stated that he has been falsely implicated. But no evidence was adduced on behalf of accused appellant in defence. Learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No.6, Ghaziabad heard arguments of the parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 1.4.2008 whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused appellant as mentioned above. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that he is not challenging conviction recorded by trial court. He is contesting appeal on point of sentence only. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that sentences awarded by trial court are excessive. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that both offences are alleged to have occurred in same transaction. Therefore both sentences of imprisonment awarded by trial court should run concurrently. The judgement of trial court is erroneous on this score. Learned A.G.A. contended that sentences awarded by trial court are appropriate and no interference is required in impugned judgement and order. I have considered the submissions made by the parties. Learned counsel for accused appellant has contested appeal only on the point of sentence. The judgement of trial court is erroneous on this score. Learned A.G.A. contended that sentences awarded by trial court are appropriate and no interference is required in impugned judgement and order. I have considered the submissions made by the parties. Learned counsel for accused appellant has contested appeal only on the point of sentence. Therefore, in view of contention raised by learned counsel for accused appellant I find no need to examine the evidence on record. Conviction recorded by trial court against accused appellant for offences punishable under section 307 and 393 I.P.C. is upheld. Learned trial court has sentenced accused appellant with rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under sections 393 I.P.C. and with rigorous imprisonment for nine years and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence under section 307 I.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case sentence of 9 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 307 I.P.C. appears excessive. Therefore sentence awarded for offence under section 307 I.P.C. should be reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. Sentence awarded by trial court requires modification accordingly. Sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment awarded for offence under section 393 I.P.C. appears appropriate and no interference is required. Impugned judgement and order passed by trial court shows that learned trial court has not ordered that both sentences awarded by trial court for two offences shall run concurrently. In the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Vs. Ahmed Bhatti A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2143, Hon'ble Apex court has held that "the the basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different. Facts mentioned above shows that accused appellant has been convicted for offences under section 307 and 393 I.P.C. alleged to have been committed in same transaction. Therefore, in view of above pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court I am of the view that sentences awarded by trial court for said two offences should run concurrently. Impugned judgement and order passed by trial court requires modification accordingly. Therefore, in view of above pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court I am of the view that sentences awarded by trial court for said two offences should run concurrently. Impugned judgement and order passed by trial court requires modification accordingly. Section 428 of Cr.P.C. provides that where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him. Reading of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shows that the period of detention in same offence shall be set off against term of imprisonment awarded by learned trial court on conviction but learned trial court has not allowed the benefit of mandatory provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. to accused appellant in its impugned judgement and order. Therefore judgement and order passed by trial court requires modification regarding benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. also. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence. Impugned judgement and order dated 1.4.2008 passed by trial court is modified to the extent that sentence awarded by trial court for offence under section 307 I.P.C. is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.5000/- and it is ordered that both sentences awarded to accused appellant for both offences shall run concurrently. It is further provided that period already undergone by accused appellant in relation to present crime shall be set off against sentences awarded to accused appellant. With above modifications remaining part of judgment and order of trial court is upheld. Send copy of judgment to trial court for sending revised conviction warrant. Lower court record shall be returned to the concerned court immediately. ——————