JUDGMENT : KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Present appellant Chauthmal alongwith his wife Pushpa Devi, was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota in Sessions Case No. 2/1985. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 25.9.1991 acquitted Pushpa Devi of offences under Sections 307/34 IPC. The trial Judge also acquitted accused Chauthmal for offence under Section 307 IPC, but convicted him for offence under Section 326 IPC. Having convicted the accused-appellant Chauthmal for the above said offence, the trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 5.10.1984. It is a case of the prosecution that on the said date at 11.00-11.30 AM, appellant Chauthmal armed with a sword, caused injuries to Chaturbhuj (PW.1), complainant, his wife Kamla (PW.2) and son Krishna Kumar (PW.3). 3. Chaturbhuj appeared in court as PW.1. In court Chaturbhuj (PW.1) stated that on 5.10.1984 at about 11.00-11.30 AM he was painting the door of his house. At that time, Chauthmal and his wife Pushpa started constructing a wall in the land in his possession, due to which abuses were exchanged. Chauthmal went inside the house and came armed with a sword, whereas his wife came armed with lathi. Chauthmal caused a sword blow on his head. Pushpa Devi caused him lathi injury. He became unconscious. At that time, his wife Kamla (PW.2) and his son Krishna Kumar (PW.3) were also attracted at the spot. 4. Kamla (PW.2) in court stated that after her husband had fallen, Chauthmal caused a sword blow on her finger on the right hand. Pushpa caused lathi injury on her head. 5. Krishna Kumar (PW.3) in court stated that the appellant caused a injury on his left elbow. 6. Dr. Y.K. Sharma (PW.9) examined Chaturbhuj (PW.1) and found two injuries on his person. Injury No. 1 was abrasion " x " on left shoulder, whereas injury No. 2 was incised wound 2" x ?" x " on back side of head. Injury No. 2 was found grievous. Three injuries were found on the person of Krishna Kumar (PW.3) and all were found simple in nature. 7. Injury No. 1 was abrasion " x " on left shoulder, whereas injury No. 2 was incised wound 2" x ?" x " on back side of head. Injury No. 2 was found grievous. Three injuries were found on the person of Krishna Kumar (PW.3) and all were found simple in nature. 7. The trial Judge considering the nature of injury No. 2 which was an incised wound having dimension of 2" x ?" x ", held that the offence will fall under Section 307 IPC, but under Section 326 IPC. State of Rajathan has filed any appeal against acquittal of accused Chauthmal of offence under Section 307 IPC. State of Rajasthan has also filed any appeal for enhancement of sentence for offence under Section 326 IPC. 8. In the present case, occurrence had taken place in October, 1984. Period of more than 33 years has already elapsed. It is well settled legal proposition that the appeal is continuation of the trial. Appellant is in the corridors of the courts for last more than three decades. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded on 16.2.1991 and his age in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was noted as 43 years. Therefore, presently the accused-appellant Chauthmal, as per learned Public Prosecutor, is aged about 70 years. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant Chauthmal is sole bread earner of the family. Learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant is not involved in any other case except the present one. 10. Considering the age, family circumstances and nature of injuries, this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to send the accuse-appellant behind the bars after 33 years of the occurrence as the same would unnecessarily disturb the settled waters. 11. Consequently, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Chauthmal is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 12. In view of above, the appeal stands disposed of.