JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. This appeal, under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C) is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC VII, District Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2002, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 308 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). Convict-appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years under section 308 IPC and six months simple imprisonment under section 323 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. It would be necessary to set out the brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present criminal appeal. The brief facts are extracted hereunder:- Umeshwar Singh (complainant/father of Ram Bharat Singh-injured) has lodged the FIR (Ex. A1) with the averments that on 22.01.2000, his son was coming back from Bulb Factory after receiving his payment of Rs. 7,000/-; at Lalpul, accused-appellant Shyamu, s/o Sukhsewak, r/o New Patel Nagar, Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar along with three unknown persons stopped his son and committed maarpeet with him due to which his son received serious injuries. It is further stated that Shakeel and Kushal Pal Singh brought his son home. Thereafter, the victim underwent treatment at Doon Hospital, Dehradun and, after that, he disclosed the entire incident. On the basis of said report, case crime No. 112 of 2000 (Ex. A4) under section 323 and 504 IPC was registered and matter was investigated by S.I. Madan pal Singh (P.W.4), who inspected the spot, prepared site plain (Ex. A2) and recording the statement of witnesses. After conclusion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet (Ex. A3) against the accused-appellant. On the basis of the medical report, offences punishable under sections 506(2) and 308 IPC were added in the crime. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial court framed charges against the appellant under sections 308, 504, 506(2) and 323 IPC. To the said charges, appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused appellant, prosecution got examined as many as six witnesses, viz., P.W.1 Ram Bharat Singh (injured), P.W. 2 Umeshwar Singh (complainant), P.W. 3 Shakeel Ahmad, P.W.4 S.I. Madan Pal Singh, P.W. 5 Dr. G.P. Painuli and P.W. 6 Dr. Narendra Dutt. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused appellant, prosecution got examined as many as six witnesses, viz., P.W.1 Ram Bharat Singh (injured), P.W. 2 Umeshwar Singh (complainant), P.W. 3 Shakeel Ahmad, P.W.4 S.I. Madan Pal Singh, P.W. 5 Dr. G.P. Painuli and P.W. 6 Dr. Narendra Dutt. Thereafter, evidence of the accused- appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. 5. The learned trial court having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, concluded that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and held him guilty for the offences punishable under section 308 and 323 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.12.2003 the appellant is before this Court. 6. P.W.1 Ram Bharat Singh (injured) in his statement has deposed that on 22.10.2000 he was coming back from Saharanpur Chowk after receipt of payment of Rs. 7000/-. At about 8:30 p.m, when he reached Lalpul, Saharanpur Road, accused-appellant met him there. Accused-appellant is cousin brother of injured. Accused escorted him towards the bridge where four persons were already there, thereafter, they started hurling abuses at him and committed marpeet with him and Shyamu inflicted injuries by kicking him, which resulted into rupture of his testicals. Shakeel and Kushal Pal came there and left the injured at his house. Thereafter injured underwent his treatment in Doon Hospital, and remained hospitalized for 25 days and during treatment one of his testis was removed. 7. P.W. 2 Umeshwar Singh (complainant) supported the version of the FIR and also corroborated the statement of P.W.1. 8. P.W.3 Shakeel Ahmad deposed that three years ago, at about 8:30 p.m, he and Kushpal Singh was going towards Lalpul, they heard shriek of Ram Bharat Singh and went to the spot where accused-appellant Shyamu was beating Ram Bharat Singh with kicks and fists. He further stated that there was electricity light at the place of incident. He further deposed that he took the injured with him and left him in his house. 9. P.W.4 Madan Pal Singh (I.O.) conducted the investigation of the case, who after recording the statement of the witnesses and on conclusion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant. 10. P.W.6 Dr. He further deposed that he took the injured with him and left him in his house. 9. P.W.4 Madan Pal Singh (I.O.) conducted the investigation of the case, who after recording the statement of the witnesses and on conclusion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant. 10. P.W.6 Dr. Narendra Dutt in his statement has deposed that he was posted as Ortho surgeon in Doon Hospital. On 23.10.2000 he medically examined injured Ram Bharat Singh and found following injuries on his person. Injuries are extracted hereunder:- (i) abraded contusion of 8cm x 4cm on top of right shoulder. (ii) Abrasion 14 cm x 3cm present on front of neck. (iii) Abrasion of 3cm x 2cm present on top of left shoulder. (iv) Contoured traumatic swelling present all over the scrotum. Injury no. 4 was kept under observation 11. P.W. 5 Dr. G.P. Painuli in his statement has deposed that on 23.10.2000 he was posted as Surgeon in Doon Hospital. He treated injured Ram Bharat Singh and conducted emergency surgery of the injured. He further stated that due to injuries sustained by the injured, right testis of the injured was got ruptured and most of the part got damaged due to which his right testis was removed and, his left testis was also found filled with blood. Injured remained hospitalized from 23.10.2000 to 07.11.2000. In his statement Medical Officer opined that these injuries was caused due to kicks and fists and if proper treatment was not done these type of injuries would have been proved fatal to life. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present crime and it was a case of simple maarpeet and there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause grievous hurt to the injured. 14. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State would contend that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and ingredients of offences punishable under sections 308 and 323 of IPC are made out against the appellant. 15. I went through the statement of P.W.1 Ram Bharat Singh (injured), P.W.2 Umeshwar Singh and P.W. 3 Shakeel Ahmad. 14. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State would contend that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and ingredients of offences punishable under sections 308 and 323 of IPC are made out against the appellant. 15. I went through the statement of P.W.1 Ram Bharat Singh (injured), P.W.2 Umeshwar Singh and P.W. 3 Shakeel Ahmad. P.W. 1-injured is the star witness of the incident and has specifically stated that accused- appellant intentionally inflicted injuries on his vital part due to which one of his testis got damaged and ultimately has to be removed. Other two witnesses also corroborated the version of the P.W. 1 and have clearly stated that accused-appellant had inflicted injuries upon the injured with kicks and fists. Nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination, which could cast any shadow of doubt regarding truthfulness of their testimony. The be reliable and trustworthy. testimony of Ram Bharat Singh and Umeshwar Singh does not suffer from any infirmity and is supported by prompt FIR and medical evidence. After careful scrutiny of the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, I find the same to 16. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the fact that it was a simple case of maarpeet is concerned, I find no force in his submission as the medical report of the injured would reveal that serious injuries were sustained by the injured on his vital parts which would have been proved fatal to his life. 17. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, this court is of the view that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him accordingly. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the sentence awarded against the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under section 308 IPC and six months simple imprisonment under section 323 IPC is exorbitant as the incident took place on 22.01.2000 and no fruitful purpose would be serve to send the appellant to jail at this stage. 19. The purpose of awarding the sentence to an accused is that the sentence should not be diluted on the account that the incident took place long back. In this country, the decision of a trial is prolonged and despite conviction, hearing of the appeal took decades to decide. 19. The purpose of awarding the sentence to an accused is that the sentence should not be diluted on the account that the incident took place long back. In this country, the decision of a trial is prolonged and despite conviction, hearing of the appeal took decades to decide. Thus, for the reason that the incident took place long back and no fruitful purpose would be serve in sending the convict to jail is not appropriate in my view. The purpose of conviction and sentence is to maintain the law and order in the society, as that, the laudable message goes to the society that if a person will commit any crime, he shall be punished sooner or later. If, due to the passage of time, the sentence is reduced less than the minimum sentences awarded or a nominal sentence it would be a mockery of law which ultimately will lessen the faith of the people in the judicial system. Thus, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence awarded. No interference is called for in the well reasoned and well discussed judgment passed by the trial court. The appeal has no force and is liable to the dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court in its order dated 05.12.2003. 20. Appellant is in jail. Let a copy of the judgment along with the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned immediately to make the appellant serve out the remaining sentence as awarded against him by the trial court and affirmed by this Court.