ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Unsuccessful in his attempt to assail judgment dated 16th of December 2011, rendered by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Parbatsar (for short, 'learned trial Court') before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Parbatsar, Nagaur (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), petitioner sent a letter to Deputy Registrar (Judl.) on 13th July 2017 from District Jail Nagaur. Upon examining subject matter and grievances of the petitioner, the letter was ordered to be treated as criminal revision petition. 2. At the threshold, learned trial Court convicted accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 323 and 326 IPC and handed down following sentences: Section 323 IPC: Six months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Section 326 IPC: Two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. 3. Being aggrieved by judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 374 Cr. P.C. before learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while affirming the judgment of learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal, vide judgment dated 13th July 2016. Therefore, the instant revision petition. 4. The facts apposite for the purpose of this revision petition are that a written report was submitted before Police Station Pilwa by one Shri Bheruram stating therein that on 17th of June 2002 at about 9:00 PM, while he was sitting outside his house, accused-petitioner Manoharlal along with Ghasiram quarrelled with Ms. Sundari and abused her, thereupon, he intervened. The report further unfurled that intervention of complainant flared up both the accused persons and therefore co-accused Ghasri Ram caught hold of him and the accused petitioner gave him blow with axe on his hand. On the basis of report, FIR was registered for offence under Sections 448 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 323 and 326 IPC. The learned trial Court, thereafter, framed aforesaid charges against the petitioner and on denial of charges, he was put on trial. The prosecution in order to prove charges against the petitioner examined 10 witnesses besides exhibiting 10 documents. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused-petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr. The learned trial Court, thereafter, framed aforesaid charges against the petitioner and on denial of charges, he was put on trial. The prosecution in order to prove charges against the petitioner examined 10 witnesses besides exhibiting 10 documents. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused-petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Then, the learned trial Court proceeded to hear final arguments and found petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 323 and 326 IPC and handed down aforementioned sentences. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court but his that effort also proved abortive inasmuch as learned appellate Court, while fully concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal. 6. The Court vide order dated 3rd of March 2017 appointed Mr. Kaushal Gautam as amicus curiae to represent the cause of accused-petitioner. 7. At the outset, learned amicus curiae, espousing the cause of the accused-petitioner, has abandoned concurrent finding of guilt recorded by learned Courts below for the offence under Sections 323 and 326 IPC but urged that there are certain mitigating circumstances for reducing the sentences awarded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court. It is argued by learned amicus curiae that petitioner has already undergone substantial period of sentence inasmuch as out of two years' maximum sentence he has served sentence of one year eight months and thirteen days. He, therefore, submits that taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, sentence awarded to accused-petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since lodging of FIR more than one and half decades have elapsed and during the interregnum petitioner has suffered a lot is also a relevant consideration for reducing the sentence awarded. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has urged that both the Courts below have recorded finding against accused-petitioner, and therefore, it is not desirable to reduce the sentence awarded to him. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments of both the Courts below and thoroughly scanned record of the case. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor has urged that both the Courts below have recorded finding against accused-petitioner, and therefore, it is not desirable to reduce the sentence awarded to him. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments of both the Courts below and thoroughly scanned record of the case. 10. There remains no quarrel that learned trial Court, on the basis of statement of witnesses in conjunction with medical evidence and other material, convicted the petitioner for the charged offences and while concurring with the said finding, learned appellate Court has affirmed his conviction. Therefore, in totality, I am not persuaded to interfere with the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below. Otherwise also, learned amicus curiae has conceded on finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below. However, at this stage, the argument of learned amicus curiae concerning some of the mitigating factors having direct ramification on the sentence awarded requires objective consideration in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Undeniably, the incident relate back to one and half decade, i. e. 2002, and during this entire period petitioner has suffered agony of protracted investigation and trial. That apart, petitioner has served substantial sentence awarded to him by remaining under incarceration for 1 year, 8 months, and 13 days, therefore, sentence warrants interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction for doing substantial justice. 11. In view of foregoing discussion, the instant jail revision is allowed in part and while maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner, sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12. The petitioner is in jail, therefore, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.