ORDER 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the appellant be acquitted and the sentence passed against the appellant be set aside. In the alternative it is also prayed that if the Hon'ble Court finds the appellant guilty of the offence, then the case does not travel beyond Section 308 IPC and in that condition the appellant may kindly be granted benefit of probation of Offenders Act." 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1992 and the present appeal is pending since 1994. 3. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 29.07.1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.23/93 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine, to further undergo three months R.I. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that its a case of solitary injury. There was no intention to cause murder or fatal injury. No blood-stains were found on the knife nor at the place of occurrence. More so, the knife was recovered after two months of the incident and was not produced before court. The witness of recovery turned hostile. Counsel for the appellant makes a limited submission for let going of the appellant in undergone sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 12.08.1994 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application (suspension of sentence) No.384/1994. 6. 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. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 8. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. 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. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. 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" 9. 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 Section 307 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. 10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.