JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant Sheo Prasad, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. By way of instant appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.03.1986 passed by VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Session Trial No.373 of 1984 State Vs. Asha Ram and others, arising out of Case Crime No.52 of 1983 under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Allahabad, whereby the appellant Sheo Prasad has been sentenced to the fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC and one and half year rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, additional three months imprisonment. 3. Relevant to mention that appellant no.1 Asha Ram died during pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the appeal qua appellant no.1 Asha Ram stood abated vide order dated 25.01.2017. 4. Since the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Judge has not been assailed and has been admitted to the appellant, therefore, it would not be in the fitness of things that a detailed narration of the incident is sketched as that would serve no worthy purpose. Though the entire facts and circumstances of the case have been taken into consideration and described in the impugned judgment but for the proper understanding of the case, it would be feasible in the interest of justice that a mention of the relevant facts is made. 5. The facts leading up to this appeal appear to be, as discernible, from the record and particularly the first information report that the informant Jagannath lodged the report at Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad on 13.03.1983 regarding some incident which took place at 7:00 p.m. the very same day in the village Bhojai Ka Pura within the police station Nawabganj wherein allegations were made that the present appellant in company with another co-accused arrived on the spot and challenged the informant's brother Ram Nath then he (Ram Nath) ran towards eastern side whereupon they chased and surrounded him in the potato field of Son where Asha Ram gave Farsa blow and Sheo Prasad gave Lathi blow. On alarm being raised, several persons arrived on the spot. Thereafter, the appellant made his escape good. The injured was taken to the police station on cot in seriously injured condition. On alarm being raised, several persons arrived on the spot. Thereafter, the appellant made his escape good. The injured was taken to the police station on cot in seriously injured condition. The written report Ext. Ka-1. 6. This report was taken down in the concerned Check FIR Ext. Ka-7 at Case Crime No.52 of 1983 under Section 324, 307 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad and on the basis of the same, a case was registered in the concerned general diary Ext. Ka-8 on the aforesaid date and time at aforesaid crime number under aforesaid sections of IPC at Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad. 7. After lodging of the first information report, the injured Ram Nath was medically examined by Dr. Sangram Singh PW-6, at Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad, on 13.03.1983 at 11:30 a.m. who noted following injuries: "1. Incised wound 4 cm x 1/4 cm x bone deep on vertex longitudinally placed 4 cm above right ear, skull bone partially cut in line of wound. 2. Incised wound 3 1/2 cm x 1 1/2 cm x bone deep with fracture of left ulna bone in lower and outer part of left forearm 1 1/2 cm above wrist. 3. Contusion 5 cm x 3/4 cm reddish, obliquely placed in lower part of left back." Injury report has been proved by the doctor as Ext. Ka-3. 8. The investigation ensued and the same was taken over by Kedar Nath Pandey PW-7. He recorded statement of various prosecution witnesses including the informant and took note of the concerned check FIR and relevant entry made in general diary. He proceeded towards the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ext. Ka-4. After completing the entire investigation, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer which is Ext. Ka-6. 9. Consequently, proceeding of the case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was transferred for conduction and disposal of the case to the aforesaid trial court of VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad who in turn heard both the sides on point of charge and was prima-facie satisfied with the case against the appellant, accordingly, framed charges under Sections 307/34, 326/34, 323/34 IPC. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant who abjured charges and opted for trial. 10. The prosecution, in order to prove guilt of the appellant examined as many as seven witnesses namely Jagannath PW-1 is the informant. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant who abjured charges and opted for trial. 10. The prosecution, in order to prove guilt of the appellant examined as many as seven witnesses namely Jagannath PW-1 is the informant. Ram Nath PW-2 is the injured himself. Mallu Singh PW-3 is witness of preparation of memo of the simple and blood clay roll which was taken from the spot. Ram Khelawan PW-4 is an eyewitness of the incident. Munni Lal PW-5 is also one of the witnesses of memo prepared for the simple and blood clay roll which was taken by the Investigating Officer from the spot. Dr. Sangram Singh PW-6 has medically examined the injured on 13.03.1983. S.I. Kedar Nath Pandey PW-7 is the Investigating Officer, he has filed charge sheet against the appellant. Except as above, no other testimony was adduced by the prosecution. 11. Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the right of private defence was claimed by the appellant and plea of ali bi has also been claimed by the appellant. The defence also examined Prabhu Dayal, x-ray technician as DW-1. Thereafter, evidence for the defence was closed. 12. The case was heard on merit by the learned trial Judge who after appraisal of facts and evaluation of the evidence and circumstances of the case, returned finding of conviction against appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.03.1986. 13. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the present appellant has moved in appeal before this Court. 14. Since learned counsel for the appellant has no objection to the conviction part of the judgment but he wants to submit on imposition of sentence against the appellant by bringing to the fore certain admitted facts regarding the manner of the commission of the offence. 15. Only argument extended is restricted to the province that the main role of causing injury to the injured Ram Nath has been ascribed to another accused namely Asha Ram, whereas, the role assigned to the present appellant is restricted to only causing Danda blow on the back of the injured Ram Nath, therefore, the sentence awarded to the extent of one and half year rigorous imprisonment, under circumstances of the case, is too harsh. Since no grievous injury has been caused by the appellant, therefore, considering that particular aspect, sentence may be modified and restricted to the fine only in this case. 16. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer so made and has justified the sentence against the appellant by submitting that the trial court has already shown sufficient latitude in awarding sentence, the same need not be interfered by this Court. However, it is obvious that the appellant has caused lesser injury on the back of the injured Ram Nath and the main role has been assigned to another accused Asha Ram who has since expired. The trial court has judiciously recorded conviction and has awarded appropriate sentence. 17. Also considered the rival submissions and taken into consideration rival claims. 18. The trial Court has taken note of the factual aspect and passed a detailed and reasoned order based on material on record which needs no interference by this Court. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is justified. 19. On the sentencing part of the impugned judgment, argument has been advanced to the ambit that in this case, the appellant has no criminal history or history of previous convict and he should be given at least one chance and particularly in view of fact that for a period of last 35 years, he has not been involved in any criminal activity/case. Therefore, that aspect of fair conduct may be considered leniently while awarding sentence against him which particular aspect has escaped attention of the trial Judge and he had no occasion to ever ponder over the same. 20. Obviously, no grave injury in the nature of it being caused by any act of the appellant is an accepted position and looking to the fact that the incident took place on 13.03.1983, it would be feasible, in the interest of justice and in the fitness of things that sentence of one and half year rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the trial court under Section 324/34 IPC be modified to fine only for Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo additional imprisonment for one month and rest of the sentence to the tune of fine Rs.500/- with default stipulation for additional three months imprisonment imposed under Section 323 IPC be maintained. 21. 21. Accordingly, sentencing part of the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 17.03.1986 passed by VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Session Trial No.373 of 1984 State Vs. Asha Ram and others, arising out of Case Crime No.52 of 1983 under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Allahabad, is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent while conviction and sentence awarded under Section 323 IPC is maintained. 22. The instant appeal is allowed, partly in aforesaid terms. 23. Let a copy of this order/judgment be certified to the court below for necessary information and follow up action.