JUDGMENT : R.C. Khulbe, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants U/s 374 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.08.2004 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge/I- F.T.C. Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 2002, Crime No. 10 of 2002, State vs. Sahazad @ Sada and Azam Sher @ Kala, in Session Trial No. 12 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 10 of 2002), State vs. Maqsood, convicting and sentencing the appellants five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 307 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2002 at about 3:30 p.m. complainant-Karesan lodged a complaint with P.S. Kotwali Roorkee with the allegations that his nephew Sunil Kumar S/o Ratan Singh R/o Village Toda Kalyanpur Village had a scuffle with another villager Kala @ Azam Sher 4-5 days back on playing tape-recorder. Today i.e. 09.01.2002 when his nephew was coming back to home after getting his hair dressed he was surrounded by Azam Sher @ Kala with sword in his hand, Maqsood and his son Sahazad @ Sada with iron rods in their hands and with common intention assaulted him and started to give beatings with sword and iron rods at around 10:30 a.m. When his nephew-Sunil raised alarm for help they pulled him inside the house and at the same time villager Ramesh Chand, Rampal and Harpal and many others people reached at the spot, when they challenged the accused, the accused fled away assuming that the victim has died. Thereafter, injured-Sunil was brought to Government Hospital Roorkee where he was admitted and his medical examination was conducted. The complainant also gave medical report of the injured with the complaint. 3. On the basis of written complaint, FIR was registered, statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared, accused persons were arrested and investigation was conducted. 4. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 307 and Section 506 IPC. 5. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC and 506 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW-1 Karesan, PW-2 Rampal, PW-3 Ramesh Chand, PW-4 Sunil Kumar, PW-5 Dr. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW-1 Karesan, PW-2 Rampal, PW-3 Ramesh Chand, PW-4 Sunil Kumar, PW-5 Dr. A.K. Mittal and PW-6 S.I. Mahesh Chand Panch Bhaiyya. 7. After completion of evidence, statements of the appellants/accused persons were recorded U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations and claimed innocence. However, stated that they have falsely been implicated due to enmity but no evidence was produced in defense by them. 8. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court, vide the judgment, under challenge, convicted and sentenced each one of them to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 307 IPC and acquitted them for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on the record. 10. During the pendency of the appeal appellant no. 3-Maqsood has passed away. Accordingly, his appeal stands abated. While, appellant no. 2-Azam Sher @ Kala has served his entire sentence as awarded by the trial Court. 11. Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Sahazad @ Sada fairly submits that the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the Court below under Sections 307 is perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and he also does not want to lay any challenge on the same, he only confined his prayer to the extent that the appellant-Sahazad @ Sada is the first time offender; he has no previous criminal history; he is the sole bread earner of his family, at the time of the incident he was only 18 years old and the assault was not premeditated but occurred as a result of sudden quarrel, hence, the sentenced awarded to the appellant-Sahazad @ Sada under Section 307 IPC for 5 years may be reduced to 2 years. 12. Mr. Sachin Panwar, learned Brief Holder for the State argued that there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 307 IPC and there is no evidence about the criminal history of the appellant/accused-Sahazad @ Sada. 13. 12. Mr. Sachin Panwar, learned Brief Holder for the State argued that there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 307 IPC and there is no evidence about the criminal history of the appellant/accused-Sahazad @ Sada. 13. Considering the fact that the appellant is sole bread earner of his family and the acceptance of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad that the appellant-Sahazad @ Sada has no previous criminal history; the assault was not premeditated but occurred as a result of sudden quarrel, and also the fact that the matter is 18 years old pertaining to the year 2002, this Court, is of the view that, 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence committed under Section 307 IPC is sufficient to serve the purpose in the present case. 14. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellant-Sahazad @ Sada is sentenced to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment instead of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment, as awarded by the Court below. 15. Lower Court Record be sent back. 16. Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/ compliance.