JUDGMENT/ORDER : P. K. Lohra, J. Accused-Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned judgment dated 19th of July, 2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') , whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 307, 420 IPC. The learned trial Court by the impugned judgment while indicting appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC has handed down sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1, 000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Likewise, for offence under Section 420 IPC, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years' with fine of Rs.1, 000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The learned trial Court has ordered to run both the sentences concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that Parcha Bayan of Pana Devi was recorded at Hanumangarh Hospital by Sub Inspector on 21.08.2012 wherein she stated that she is blind and her husband has died and she having no issue lives in village Aherwan with his brother Gyan, whose son's name is Jhandu. That day, on the pretext of treatment of her eyes Jhandu had taken her to the Bank and got withdrawn Rs.4, 000 and thereafter taken her in a bus to a remote place and gave beatings to her and thereafter pushed her in a canal. After falling in the canal, fortunately, one tree came to her catch and holding that tree she kept on calling for help to save her. Subsequently, police and other people came to the spot and pulled her out from the canal. On that basis, FIR No.03/2012 came to be registered and the police after investigation filed charge-sheet against appellant for offence under Sections 307, 420 IPC before the Court concerned wherefrom the case was committed to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court heard on charge and framed charge against accused appellant for the said offence. During trial, in order to prove charge against accused-appellant, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, he produced no witness in his defence. 3. The learned trial Court heard on charge and framed charge against accused appellant for the said offence. During trial, in order to prove charge against accused-appellant, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, he produced no witness in his defence. 3. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, found both the offences against the appellant fully proved and considering his culpability held him guilty and awarded sentences, as aforesaid. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has abandoned challenge to the conviction of appellant, however, submits that the appellant has already suffered substantial part of the sentence awarded to him, therefore, the sentences awarded to him be reduced to the period already undergone. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that since occurrence of the incident about six years have elapsed and during interregnum the appellant has already remained in custody for about 5 years and 9 months, as such, a lenient view in the matter of sentence is desirable. It is further contended by learned counsel that injuries suffered by Panna Devi (injured) are simple in nature as per medical report. Lastly, learned counsel would urge that for both the offences Legislature has not prescribed minimum sentence and therefore considering appellant's age, his responsibility to the family, the therapeutic rather than punitive approach is required in the matter for reducing the sentences. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is reliable, clinching and trustworthy evidence on record to prove that the appellant has committed the offence and prosecution has proved the charge levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt, as such, it is not desirable to grant any reprieve or show mercy even by reducing the sentence. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that taking into account the entire fact scenario, the appeal is liable to be nixed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the record of the case. 7. The learned trial Court, has recorded a definite finding of guilt against appellant after examining the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material available on record for the charged offences. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the record of the case. 7. The learned trial Court, has recorded a definite finding of guilt against appellant after examining the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material available on record for the charged offences. Without disturbing the finding of guilt as not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be observed here that the version of the victim in her Parcha Bayan per se appears to be tentative and not definite. There are plausible reasons for expressing doubts about her version more particularly in the wake of the fact that at the time of incident she was octogenarian with totally blurred vision or rather blind. Be that as it may, as the appellant has abandoned challenge to the finding of guilt, Court feels that the same can very well be considered as mitigating circumstance for considering his limited prayer in this appeal. At this stage, it is also relevant to note here that victim has not suffered grievous injuries and when she was examined by Doctor (PW6) , she was in sane condition and not unconscious. The doctor has also opined that such injuries may be caused by falling. As noticed hereinabove, the incident is of the year 2012 and since then much water has flown, I feel inclined to examine the prayer of the appellant objectively with pragmatic approach. The learned trial Court has awarded maximum sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1, 000 and in default of payment to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for offence under Section 307 and 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1, 000 and in default of payment to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for offence under Section 420 IPC and ordered running both the sentences concurrently. Therefore, by now since the appellant has already undergone sentence for a substantial period, i.e., five years and nine months, in my view, it would be appropriate to grant some reprieve to him in the matter of punishment. The object of punishment in the scheme of modern social defence is correction of the wrong doer and not wrecking gratuitous punitive vengeance on the criminal. The object of punishment in the scheme of modern social defence is correction of the wrong doer and not wrecking gratuitous punitive vengeance on the criminal. A significant fact, that appellant is not a previous convict and has already suffered for his omissions, has also paved the way for exercising discretion in his favour to reduce the sentence to meet the ends of justice. Supreme Court, in Sadha Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, (1985) 3 SCC 225 , while interfering with the judgment of High Court reducing three years' rigorous imprisonment to three months' imprisonment for offence under Section 307 IPC, has restored the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine. 8. Therefore, the instant appeal is allowed in part and conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 307 and 420 IPC is upheld and the sentence awarded to him for both the offences is reduced to the sentence he has already undergone while maintaining fine. The appellant may be set at liberty upon his depositing the amount of fine imposed by learned trial Court, if not required in any other case.