JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J.) These are two connected cases arising out of judgment dated 24.10.1983 passed in Session Trial No. 274 of 1981 convicting the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment of 4 years. Criminal revision no. 2401 of 1983 has been preferred by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence awarded to accused. During the pendency of the appeal accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3 Janardhan S/o Asha Ram and Virendra S/o Jagdish Prasad died and the appeal filed by them has been abated vide order dated 1.9.2016. Since both the matters arise out of a common judgment they have been clubbed together and are being decided by a common judgment. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.A. In brief the prosecution case is as follows:- On 26.5.1981 at about 7:00 PM Ved Prakash (victim) who was brother of complainant Mangi Ram along with Mangi Ram were returning from Tube-well to their house, after inspecting their sugar cane crops. Ved Prakash was slightly ahead of Mangi Ram after. It is alleged that when Ved Prakash (victim) reached near chak of one Jai Prakash situate near the drainage (Nala), all the three accused persons came out of the drainage (Nala). Accused Janardan and Vinod were armed with country made pistols while Virender had a knife with him. The accused Janardan and Vinod who were armed with country made pistol fired at Ved Prakash who received gun shot injuries and then all the three accused surrounded him. Ved Prakash caught hold the hand of the accused Virendra who gave knife blows and other accused armed with country made pistol hit him with butt of the pistol on the head. The incident was seen by the Mangi Ram, Dafedar Singh, Satya Prakash and one Sardar. The accused thereafter escaped. It also transpires from the record that in a criminal case filed against Janardan and others the injured Ved Prakash was a witness for the prosecution and at the time of occurrence this criminal case was pending and Ved Prakash had not been examined in that case. The accused thereafter escaped. It also transpires from the record that in a criminal case filed against Janardan and others the injured Ved Prakash was a witness for the prosecution and at the time of occurrence this criminal case was pending and Ved Prakash had not been examined in that case. It also transpires that another criminal case by one Tej Pal had been filed against Jagdish and others in which the father of the two accused Virendra and Vinod are co-accused and in the said case also Ved Prakash appeared as a witness from the side of the complainant. It also transpires that Ved Prakash also lodged a report in 1979 against the accused Vinod and some other person and that case was also pending at the time of occurrence meaning thereby the accused were inimical with the victim Ved Prakash and that is the reason (motive) of this incident. Further, the prosecution story is that victim Ved Prakash had a number of injuries and he was picked up by Mangi Ram and brought by a tractor trolley to PS Shamli where Mangi Ram lodged a report at 9.05 PM. Head Moharrir Ram Bhagwan made entries in the general diary and registered a criminal case against accused. Thereafter, the injured was sent with constable Kalu Ram to the civil hospital for medical examination. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses and filed formal documents to prove its case which are as follows:- PW1 Dr. Krishan Das Agarwal, who conducted the medical examination of the injured Ved Prakash on 26.5.1981 at 9.30 PM and proved the injury report Ex. KA1, supplementary report Ex. KA2 and X-ray plates Ex. 1 to 4. PW2 Dr. S. C. Gupta (Radiologist) deposed that the X-ray plates Ex. 1 to 4 of injured Ved Prakas were taken on 28.5.1981 in the hospital in his presence. PW3 Kalu Ram stated that on 26.5.1981 at 9:30 PM he brought the injured Ved Prakash to hospital at Shamli with "Chitthi Majruhi". PW4 Mangi Ram is the real brother of the injured Ved Prakash who lodged the F.I.R. at the police station and proved the written report Ex. KA4 which is on record. PW5 Dafedar, PW6 Satya Prakash are the eye witnesses of the incident. PW-7 HC Ram Bhagwan is a formal witness who made entries in the general diary and registered the case and proved the copy of the GD Ex. KA4 which is on record. PW5 Dafedar, PW6 Satya Prakash are the eye witnesses of the incident. PW-7 HC Ram Bhagwan is a formal witness who made entries in the general diary and registered the case and proved the copy of the GD Ex. KA5. PW8 Ved Prakash is the injured witness. PW9 SI Pran Sukh Sharma is the Investigating Officer, he prepared the sealed cover of blood stain cloth of injured and prepared the memo of the same Ex. KA6. He also prepared the site plan with the complainant Mangi Ram Ex. KA7. He collected the blood and blood stained earth soil from the spot and sealed it in a Tin which is Ex. KA9. IO has prepared its memo Ex. KA8. He also found empty cartridges at the spot and sealed them. He prepared the memo of the same Ex. KA9 and the memo of cartridges are exhibited as Ex. 11/1 and 11/2. After completion of the investigation, IO submitted the charge sheet Ex. KA10 which is available on record. Prosecution produced 9 witnesses to prove its case along with formal relevant documents as referred to above in which Mangi Ram (complainant), Dafedar Singh, Satya Prakash and Ved Prakash are direct eye witnesses of the occurrence while Dr. K. D. Agarwal and Dr. S.C. Gupta are formal witnesses and their testimony is with regard to the medical evidence and the testimony of Constable Kalu Ram, HC Ram Bhagwan and SI Pran Sukh Sharma related with police papers. Therefore, they all are formal witnesses. Dr. K. D. Agarwal, Medical Officer Civil Hospital Shamli conducted the medical examination of the injured Ved Prakash at 09:30 PM and proved the medical report Ex. KA1 and found the following injuries on the body of injured:- 1. Trilaceration 3 X ¼ CM X scalp deep on head 12 CM above right ear. Injuries simple blunt. 2. Lacerated wound Tr 1 X ¼ CM X scalp deep on head 10 CM above middle of right eye brow. Injuries simple blunt. 3. (Tri R. side) each arm 1 X 1 CM X skull deep on head 9 ½ CM above bridge of nose. Simple blunt. 4. Vertical incised wound 7 ½ X ¾ CM X ¾ CM deep on neck 1 ¼ CM behind Rt. Ear. Margins clean cut smooth & well defined. Simple sharp cutting. 5. Tr. Injuries simple blunt. 3. (Tri R. side) each arm 1 X 1 CM X skull deep on head 9 ½ CM above bridge of nose. Simple blunt. 4. Vertical incised wound 7 ½ X ¾ CM X ¾ CM deep on neck 1 ¼ CM behind Rt. Ear. Margins clean cut smooth & well defined. Simple sharp cutting. 5. Tr. incised wound 3 CM X 1 CM X deepth not probed on chest 6 CM away from Rt. Nipple at 5 O' clock position. Margin clean cut & smooth Sharp cutting kept u.o. 6. Tr incision 1 ½ X ½ CM X deepth not probed on Rt. Side back near angle of scapulla. Sharp cutting kept u.o. 7. Tr incision 1 ½ X ½ CM X 1/5 CM on left inner upper part of scapulla. Simple sharp cutting. 8. Tr incision 3 X ½ X 1 CM on back of left shoulder back. Simple sharp cutting. 9. Vr incision 2 X ½ X ½ CM on left shoulder superior aspect. Incisions are having clean cut & smooth margins. Simple sharp cutting. From wounds fresh blood oozing out. The duration is fresh. I/M-Tr scar ¾ X ½ CM on left knee from injury report of Ved Prakash continued. 10. Multiple lacerated small wounds on back of left buttock & lower side of back over an area of 33 CM X 20 CM. 11. Multiple small lacerated wounds on palm of left hand on thumb 8 pase (sic) over an area of 8 CM X 5 CM. 12. Multiple small lacerated wounds on Rt. side chest from L over an area of 25 X 20 CM. 13. Multiple small lacerated wound on from L of Rt. forearm and arm over an area of 32 X 9 CM. 14. Multiple small lacerated wound Rt. Palm at thumb side over an area of 5 X 4 CM. 15. Multiple small lacerated wound on face on Rt. side and chin. 16. Multiple small lacerated wounds on Rt. knee from over an area of 12 X 6 CM. As per his opinion injury nos. 1 to 3 would be caused by a butt end of a country made pistols and injury nos. 4 to 9 by some incised weapon and injury nos. 10 to 16 by some fire arms weapon. 16. Multiple small lacerated wounds on Rt. knee from over an area of 12 X 6 CM. As per his opinion injury nos. 1 to 3 would be caused by a butt end of a country made pistols and injury nos. 4 to 9 by some incised weapon and injury nos. 10 to 16 by some fire arms weapon. He also opined that injuries were fresh and could have been caused on that very day at 7:00 PM. Dr. S. C. Gupta, Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Muzaffarnagar has proved the X-ray examination of the victim. He found Radio Opaque multiple density under various injuries and also found surgical emphysema on the right side under the injury no. 5. Ex. KA 3 is the report given by Dr. S. C. Gupta and on the basis of which Dr. K. D. Agarwal gave a supplementary report which is Ex. KA2 on record. After close of prosecution evidence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of all the three accused were recorded. They have stated therein that they have been falsely implicated due to strained relation. However, no witness in defence has been produced except certain documents to show connectivity of the witnesses and their strained relationship. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellants Vinod, Janardan and Virendra under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.10.1983 this appeal has been preferred. It is also relevant to mention here that aggrieved against the order of the sentence complainant Mangi Ram, the real brother of the victim Ved Prakash has preferred revision no. 2401 of 1983 praying for the enhancement of the sentence of 4 years rigorous imprisonment to life imprisonment alleging therein that incident was a preplanned, deliberate and a calculated attack. Injured Ved Prakash received very serious injuries and in view of the nature and number of injuries the awarded punishment by the Trial Court is too meagre and only because of the immediate medical help the life of the injured Ved Prakash was saved, otherwise he would have died. Before entering into the merits of the appeal we would like to refer to the relevant and important factual status of the parties. The learned trial court has recorded conviction and sentence against the three accused namely Vinod, Janardan and Virendra. Before entering into the merits of the appeal we would like to refer to the relevant and important factual status of the parties. The learned trial court has recorded conviction and sentence against the three accused namely Vinod, Janardan and Virendra. The appeal filed by the accused-appellants Janardan and Virendra due to their death has already been abated. At present there is only one surviving accused-appellant Vinod who is before us. It has been brought to our notice that victim injured Ved Prakash has also died his natural death. It has also been brought to our notice that the revisionist Mangi Ram who was real brother of the injured Ved Prakash has also died as per the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The learned counsel for the appellant Vinod has challenged the sentence order and alternatively contended that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 26.5.1981 and the impugned judgment is dated 24.10.1983 and the appeal has been preferred in the year 1983. The accused-appellant Vinod remained in Jail from 12.6.1981 to 24.11.1983 almost for about 2 ½ years. Accused-appellant Vinod is a farmer and at present aged about 60 years. The appeal is pending since long 33 years. He further contended that the injury report Ex. KA1 and supplementary report Ex. KA2 as well as X-ray report Ex. KA3 given by Dr. S. C. Gupta if taken into consideration reveal that PW1 Dr. K. D. Agarwal has reported that except injury nos. 5 and 6 which were sharp cutting and kept under observation were found to be simple in nature. The supplementary report Ex. KA2 reveals that fire arm injury no. 10 to 16 are simple in nature. As per his arguments since all the injuries found on the body of the injured Ved Prakash are said to have been caused by the butt of country made pistol, incised wound by the sharp edged weapon like knife and fire arm injuries, keeping the nature, manner and mode of assault along with nature of the injuries, he has submitted for modification of the sentence from 4 years RI to the period already undergone as during trial accused remained 2 1/2 years in jail. On the other hand learned counsel for the revisionist contended that as many as 16 injuries were found at the time of medical examination of the injured victim Ved Prakash. On the other hand learned counsel for the revisionist contended that as many as 16 injuries were found at the time of medical examination of the injured victim Ved Prakash. According to him enmity with the accused is an admitted fact. Further, injury report reveals that the weapon used is the fire arm and sharp edged weapon like knife. Hence, the appellant does not deserve a lenient view as the same has already been taken by the trial judge. It is further submitted that no lenient view is required but has admitted this fact that the injury nos. 5 and 6 are caused by accused Virendra and they were incised wound caused by the knife and as per prosecution knife is assigned to accused Virendra. Admittedly, the accused Virendra had died and appeal preferred by him is abated. The appellant Vinod was assigned fire arm weapon and the other accused Janardan was also assigned fire arm weapon and admittedly the injury nos. 1 to 3 are from the butt end of the country made pistol and injury nos. 10 to 16 are fire arm injuries which the doctor has opined to be simple in nature. It is also admitted fact that co-accused Janardan had died and appeal preferred by him is also abated. We have independently scrutinized the medical evidence in the teeth of the rival contentions of the parties and given careful consideration to the medical evidence tendered by the prosecution before the trial court. Facts and attending circumstances of this case and perusal of the injury report proved by Dr. K. D. Agarwal reveal that the injury report is in two parts. Injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 are stated to be the simple and blunt. Injury no. 4 simple sharp cutting, injury nos. 5 and 6 sharp cutting kept under observation, injury nos. 7 to 9 are simple and sharp cutting, injury nos. 10 to 16 in the supplementary report on the basis of X-ray report opined by the doctor to be simple in nature. Injury nos. 5 and 6 which were kept under observation and were caused by sharp cutting weapon, are not proved to be sufficient to cause the death of the victim and this way all the injuries are of simple in nature and cannot be said to have been inflicted on vital part of the body of the injured. Injury nos. 5 and 6 which were kept under observation and were caused by sharp cutting weapon, are not proved to be sufficient to cause the death of the victim and this way all the injuries are of simple in nature and cannot be said to have been inflicted on vital part of the body of the injured. More so, it is relevant to mention that sharp edged weapon knife has been assigned to the accused Virendra who is now reported to be dead and appeal qua him has already been abated. As we have already mentioned above that appellant Virendra and appellant Janaradan have died and their appeal has already been abated due to their death. It is also admitted fact that victim injured Ved Prakash has died his natural death during the hearing of this appeal. It has also brought on record that real brother of the injured Ved Prakash, the revisionist Mangi Ram has also died who had prayed for the enhancement of the sentence. The appeal is pending since 1983 and till now almost 33 years have elapsed. We would like to refer that cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime, he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The Court must strike a fine and just balance between mitigating and aggravating circumstances of a particular accused while passing a sentence against him. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment. In this way the fact and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for the commission of the crime, the conduct of accused and all other attending circumstances are relevant factor which to be taken into consideration. Further, we would like to mention that it is trite law that the sentence must not be too liberal or too harsh rather it should be commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and its impact on society so that social harmony may be maintained. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. As we have already stated the injury nos. 5 and 6 is the only injury which would invite the applicability of Section 307. The other injuries are of simple nature. Admittedly, the incident happened in the year 1981 and almost 33 years have been elapsed since then. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant Vinod is either habitual offender or a previous convict. The age of the appellant Vinod at the time of incident was 25 years and now he is above almost 60 years, so no useful purpose would be served by sending him in Jail after more than 35 years of the incident. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as age, character and other antecedents of the appellant Vinod Kumar, we find that it will be meet end of justice if the sentence awarded to the appellant Vinod Kumar is modified and reduced. Considering the fact as stated above and long passage of time, it would be appropriate to restrict the period of sentence to period already undergone. We however, direct that fine of Rs. 20,000/- be realized from the accused appellant and in default of payment of fine the appellant Vinod Kumar shall undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The fine will be paid within three months from the date of judgment. Since the injured had died the fine shall be payable to his legal representative. Conclusion:- On the basis of aforesaid reason we are of the considered view that the conviction is confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- which shall be payable within 3 months. Since the injured is reported to be dead, the fine shall be payable to the legal representative of the victim/injured. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed and appeal is partly allowed. Let a certified copy of the judgment and order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for compliance report. The lower court records be returned for compliance.