JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "it is, therefore, prayed that your Lordship's will be pleased to accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, dated 20.04.93 and accused appellant be acquitted for offence U/s. 307, 324, 323 I.P.C." 3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1989 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1993. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 20.04.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 41/89, whereby appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 324 & 323 of IPC, and sentence awarded to the petitioner were to run concurrently, as under:- Section 307 IPC: Seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I. Section 324 IPC: One year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months' R.I. Section 323 IPC: Three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days' R.I. 5. Mr. Subhankar Johari, Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the written report was lodged on 22.03.1989 regarding the incident, which took place at the time of Holi function, in which, it is alleged that the present appellant inflicted knife blow upon one Kalyan Singh, the brother of the complainant, as well as also upon the complainant. 6. Learned counsel further submits that there are discrepancies in the evidence as the deposition of the witnesses was not supported by the medical evidence as the injury on the thigh of Kalyan Singh and on the eye of Sajjan Singh were differently reported. 6. Learned counsel further submits that there are discrepancies in the evidence as the deposition of the witnesses was not supported by the medical evidence as the injury on the thigh of Kalyan Singh and on the eye of Sajjan Singh were differently reported. Learned counsel also submits that in the village, Holi celebration function was a common place, and thus, there could have been independent witnesses, which proves that the incident did not happen as it is reported. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the doctor was very clear in his opinion that there was no injury, which was dangerous to life unless of course if any of the injuries remain till date. The suggestion of consumption of alcohol and falling of the complainant was of course not accepted by the learned trial court. 8. Learned counsel also submits that the version of the prosecution itself was not fully believed as the other co-accused Mohan Singh, Hanuman Singh and Bhagwan Singh were all acquitted and on the same set of evidence, the present accused person has been convicted. 9. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards Exhibit P-4, the complaint; Exhibit P-3, the injury report of Kalyan Singh; Exhibit P-16, the Forensic report; Exhibit P-17, the injury report of Sajjan Singh and Exhibit P-29 the arrest memo. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid facts create suspicion in the prosecution story, and thus, the benefit of doubt should go to the present appellant. 11. Learned counsel also submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 13.07.1993 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail/Suspension of Sentence Application No. 141/1993. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions on the ground that the injuries are there and the injured witnesses are consistent in their deposition. 14. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions on the ground that the injuries are there and the injured witnesses are consistent in their deposition. 14. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances." Haripada Das (Supra) "...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..." 15. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the material available on record, finds that though there are discrepancies in the statements and the versions given by the complainant, but at the same time, the injuries and the injured witness have withstood the version. 16. This Court is not in agreement with the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that an injury, which if not treated could become an injury dangerous to life, has to be treated as dangerous to life, as it is only an indication that the timely treatment was required. 17. However, taking into account the aforesaid observations, this Court is inclined to grant limited intervention of substituting the sentence, while maintaining the conviction, substituting the sentence with the sentence already undergone. 18. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. 17. However, taking into account the aforesaid observations, this Court is inclined to grant limited intervention of substituting the sentence, while maintaining the conviction, substituting the sentence with the sentence already undergone. 18. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant's conviction under Sections 307, 324 & 323 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 19. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.