JUDGMENT 1. - Appeal No.946/2010 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant Devendra @ Chikuda for quashing of order dated 26.11.2010 whereby he has been convicted and sentence for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307 IPC; whereas appeal No.944/2011 has been preferred on behalf of the complainant Mukesh Kumar for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused Devendra. Since both the appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 26.11.2010, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment & order. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 26.9.2009, injured complainant-Mukesh Kumar was admitted in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur wherefrom he gave a parcha bayan that he is a driver by profession and he was driving from village Gudha to village Bamal was and the accused appellant was accompaying him. When all the passengers parted off, then appellant alleged to have asked the complainant to drive upto his residence. It was further alleged that when appellant was about to drop, then complainant asked for the commutation charges and the appellant inflicted injuries upon the complainant with knife and he fell unconscious. Thereafter certain articles were alleged to have been taken away by the appellant. 3. On the basis of said parcha bayan, FIR being 331/2009 was registered for offence under Sections 341,323,324 and 307 IPC at PS- Gudha. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate. The case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, from where it was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jhunjhunu. The trial court framed charges against the appellant to the aforesaid offences, to which accused denied and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in its support and exhibited 19 documents. Statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above vide judgment dated 26.11.2010. 4. Against the said judgment dated 26.11.2010, these appeals have been preferred by the accused appellant as also complainant. 5. Statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above vide judgment dated 26.11.2010. 4. Against the said judgment dated 26.11.2010, these appeals have been preferred by the accused appellant as also complainant. 5. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant Devendra @ Chikuda has contended that he is young man, it is his first offence and he remained in judicial custody for about 4 years 06 months and 18 days, and he is only male member in his family to earn livelihood and his mother has expired during the course of pendency of appeal. It is also contended that the appellant has already deposited the fine 4-6 months back in the Central Jail-Udaipur, therefore, he requests to this court as under: (i) that the probation may be given to the appellant for the aforesaid offence, if not then (ii) appellant may be released for the period already undergone by him in custody. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the same and contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court is just and proper; it is not the first case of appellant and accused appellant has inflicted injury to the complainant which is dangerous to life. In such circumstances, punishment so awarded may be enhanced. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I do not think it just and proper to give benefit of probation of offenders Act to the appellant, but it is a fit case to release him & reduce the sentence for the period already undergone by him in custody. 9. In the result, the appeal of the appellant Devendra @ Chikuda is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) The conviction is maintained. (ii) The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case and his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iii)Impugned judgment of the trial court stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. (iv) The appeal of the complainant Mukesh Kumar is hereby dismissed. *******