JUDGMENT 1. -This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment/order dated 22.05.1992 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No.12/90, whereby the learned court below convicted the accused Dev Karan under Section 326 IPC and accused Prahlad under section 326/34 IPC, and sentenced them to undergo 3 years' RI together with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, sentenced them to undergo 3 months RI with a fine, and accused Dev Karan has been convicted under section 325 IPC and Prahlad has been convicted under section 325/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's RI and Dev Karan and Prahlad have also been convicted under section 323 IPC and sentenced to under to six months RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default thereof, ten days' RI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that about 26 years ago, a First Information Report No.174/92 was registered in the Police Station Khanpur, District Jhalawar, whereupon investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the police filed the challan before the Magistrate concerned, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter the charges were framed against the accused person, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 22.05.1992 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. 4. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 22.05.1992 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that with a view to purchase the peace in mind, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the courts below, but he is only requesting to this court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place about 26 years' ago from today; the appellants are facing the trial since the last 26 years; when the occurrence took place, the appellants were young and now Dev Karan is 50 years old and Prahlad is 52 years old; the accused appellants have remained in custody for 21 days; they are married person and having the children of marriageable age, they are not the previously convicted person; either they should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC; and if not; then they should be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.L.J. 2061 , wherein their Lordships 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. 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. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation. Appeal dismissed." 6. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that neither the benefit of probation should be given to the appellants nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I do not think it proper to release the accused appellants on probation, but 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, the appeal is disposed of with the following directions: i) The appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed; ii) Their conviction is maintained; iii) Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him 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 hereinabove.Appeal disposed of. *******