JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.01.2007, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa, in S.T. No. 120 of 2002, in connection with Meral P.S. Case No. 67 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 630 of 2001, whereby and where under the sole appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as the R.I.) for a period of 9 (nine) months for the offence punishable under S. 324 of the I.P.C. but no separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under section 341 of the I.P.C. The learned Court below further directed that the period of sentence already undergone by him in jail would be set of as per the provisions laid down u/S. 428 of the I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story as set out in fardbeyan by the informant Awadh Kishore Deo recorded by S.I. Sri M. Imam of Meral Police Station on 06.09.2001, at about 11:00 p.m. at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Garhwa, where it has been alleged that on 06.09.2001, in the evening at about 7:00 p.m., the informant-cum injured Awadh Kishore Deo (P.W. -3) sat at Devasthal situated at village Parua within the jurisdiction of Meral P.S. in the District of Garhwa. Thereafter, at about 7:15 p.m., he left the place by saying to Lakhan Koiri and Talwan Mahto, who were also sitting there that he was going to his house as his wife was alone in the house. He (the informant) had a five cells torch in his hand. When he reached about 5 steps ahead of aanganbari, he felt that someone was coming from behind. He turned his face by switching on his torch and saw that that person was one Jitendra Chandrawanshi who wore only paijama and having a danda fitted in spade in his hand. When he asked him that where he was going, he responded that his wife was ill, so he had gone to Dr. Binod to bring medicine. He (Jitendra) advised him to by Himgange Oil from the shop of one Raja Sao which would cure the headache and to get his wife treated at Robartsganj. When he asked him that where he was going, he responded that his wife was ill, so he had gone to Dr. Binod to bring medicine. He (Jitendra) advised him to by Himgange Oil from the shop of one Raja Sao which would cure the headache and to get his wife treated at Robartsganj. Thereafter, he proceeded towards his house and when he reached near Bamboo clamp (Bans ka Bakhar) about 10 steps ahead, all of a sudden, one person having armed with a deadly weapon attacked him on his left hand from the bamboo clamp for which he sustained injury and fell down on the ground. He identified the assailant in torch-light as his villager Vijay Yadav (the appellant accused). Thereafter, he was inflicted gadasa-blow on his head and neck and when he warded off with his right hand, he sustained injury on his right hand. He had been assaulted by the accused with deadly weapon and when he raised hulla (alarm for help), although 4 to 5 persons were present in the shop of Raja Sao situated at a distance of about 20 steps from there, but no one tried to save him. Vijay Yadav (the sole appellant) caused him serious injuries which were fatal and then fled away towards northern direction. At the time of occurrence, Raja Sao himself was sitting at his shop. After a short-while villagers came there. Out of them Raja Sao came firstly. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan containing the aforesaid allegations, a case was registered as Meral P.S. Case No. 67 of 2001 u/Ss. 327, 307, 120-B of the I.P.C. against Vijay Yadav (the sole appellant), Jitendra Chandrawanshi and Raja Sao. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 07.10.2001 u/Ss. 324, 341, 307, 120-A and 34 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons named above and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by S.D.J.M., Garhwa on 04.10.2002. Thereafter, the case has been transferred to the file of the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sesions Judge, Garhwa for favour of trial and disposal. In examination u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the accused persons denied their allegations. In defence some oral evidences have been adduced on their behalf. Thereafter, the case has been transferred to the file of the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sesions Judge, Garhwa for favour of trial and disposal. In examination u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the accused persons denied their allegations. In defence some oral evidences have been adduced on their behalf. The defence version of the accused was in complete denial of occurrence as alleged and their false implication in the case, as on the alleged date of occurrence the informant –cum-injured Awadh Kishore Deo fell on the ground due to dark night and rainy day near pond and bamboo clamp and sustained injuries. 4. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge. 5. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Smt. Nehala Sharmin, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the state. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the sole appellant after being found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 341 of the I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 9 months for the offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C. and no separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the I.P.C. It has further been pointed out that the sole appellant has already remained in jail about more than 8 months and therefore the learned Counsel submitted that the appellant does not want argue this appeal on merit and wants to confine his arguments only on the point of sentence. It has further been pointed out that having taken into consideration that the substantive period of imprisonment has already undergone by the appellant, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that let the sentence as awarded by the learned court below be modified for a term of period already undergone by him. It has further been pointed out that having taken into consideration that the substantive period of imprisonment has already undergone by the appellant, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that let the sentence as awarded by the learned court below be modified for a term of period already undergone by him. It has further been pointed out that there is nothing on record to show about his (the accused appellant) criminal history and the occurrence is said to have been taken place as far back as in the year 2001 and thus the sole appellant is suffering from miseries and trauma of the criminal proceedings since last 20 years and therefore in view of these mitigating factors, lenient view may be taken by modifying the sentence as awarded by the learned court below. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State 7. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that since the appellant does not want to argue this case on merit, let this appeal be dismissed accordingly and she further submitted that in view of the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant, she did not controvert the facts with respect to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant, that is the period of about more than 8 months, which is evident from the record itself and submitted that let a suitable order be passed on the point of sentence. Appraisal & Findings 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case including the lower courts records. 9. The sole appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 341 of the I.P.C. and holding the conviction, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 9 months under section 324 of the I.P.C. and no separate sentence was imposed for the offence punishable under section 341 of the I.P.C. It is found from the record that the sole appellant has already remained in jail for more than 8 months. Further it is found that the occurrence has taken place as far back as in the year 2001 and as such for about more than 20 years, the sole appellant is suffering from trauma and miseries of criminal prosecution. Further it is found that the occurrence has taken place as far back as in the year 2001 and as such for about more than 20 years, the sole appellant is suffering from trauma and miseries of criminal prosecution. Further, it is also found that there is nothing on the record to show about his criminal history and further almost total period of imprisonment as awarded to the sole appellant has already been served and over a period of time, the sole appellant Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Prasad Yadav has also reached to his middle age and is now about 50 years old. In view of these mitigating factors, it is found that no useful purpose would be served to send the appellant again in jail and therefore by upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 324 and 341 of the I.P.C., this Court sets-aside the order of sentence passed by the passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa, in S.T. No. 120 of 2002, in connection with Meral P.S. Case No. 67 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 630 of 2001and alters the order of sentence by imposing the sentence of imprisonment for a term for the period already undergone by the appellant. 10. In the backdrop, this appeal is dismissed with modification of order of sentence as above. 11. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. 12. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Court concerned along with the Lower Court Record.