JUDGMENT : 1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 12.09.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.35/1993, whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced them as under : Name of the Appellant Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded (1) Bajrang alias Bhaida (2) Ramzan Section 307 IPC 5 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. of 1 month Section 324 IPC 1 year's R.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. of 15 days Section 323 IPC 6 months' R.I. with a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. of 7 days Section 447 IPC (Bajrang Singh) Section 447/34 IPC (Ramzan) 3 months' R.I. with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. of 7 days 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.05.1991 at 12.30 a.m., SHO Police Station Nokha received a Parcha Bayan of one Dungar Ram, who was admitted at the PHC, Nokha Mandi, to the effect that at about 12 o'clock on that night, when he was sleeping in his house, someone knocked the door. He opened the door seeing his brother Gopal. At that time, the appellant Bajrang @ Bhaida caught hold of his throat and asked another appellant Ramzan Sika who was standing beside to kill him, on which, he gave a knife blow on the left side of the chest of the complainant. Thereafter both the appellants started giving him knife blows. Hearing the hue and cry of the complainant, his wife and neighbors gathered there and upon their intervention, the appellants ran away from the spot. His brothers put him on a cart and took to the hospital. It is stated that appellant Bajrang had previous enmity with the complainant. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, FIR No.110/1991 for the offences under Sectiosn 307, 324 and 34 came to be registered and the investigation commenced. His brothers put him on a cart and took to the hospital. It is stated that appellant Bajrang had previous enmity with the complainant. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, FIR No.110/1991 for the offences under Sectiosn 307, 324 and 34 came to be registered and the investigation commenced. The accused were arrested and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against them for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323/34 and 457 of the IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nokha, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the trial court for trial. 3. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants for the offences under Sections 307 and 307/34, 326 and 326/34, 324 and 324/34, 323 and 323/34 and 454 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, explanation was sought from the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused did not choose to examine any witness, but exhibited 2 documents. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above vide judgment dated 12.09.1994, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal. 4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the incident is of the year 1991 and now more than 32 years have elapsed since then. The appellants were 26 -27 years of age at the time of the incident. As per the medical reports and the statement of the doctor, all the injuries were simple in nature. The appellants are not the persons of criminal nature, which is revealing from the fact that they are on bail since the year 1994 and are living peacefully and no report contrary to that has been received by this court. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct in the impugned judgment. The appellants are not the persons of criminal nature, which is revealing from the fact that they are on bail since the year 1994 and are living peacefully and no report contrary to that has been received by this court. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct in the impugned judgment. They have faced the criminal proceedings for a period of more than 3 decades and they have remained behind the bars for some time during trial and thereafter from the date of passing of the impugned judgment till grant of bail by this court, therefore, the sentences awarded to them may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants but does not refute the fact that they have remained behind the bars for some time during trial and after passing of the impugned judgment. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record. 7. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 8. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 1991. As per the medical evidence, all the injuries received by the victim were simple in nature. At the time of the incident, the accused appellants were 26-27 years of age and now they are around 60 years of age. They have faced the rigor of the criminal case for a long period of 32 years and more. They are poor persons as one of them was labour and other one was a tailor. They are on bail since 19.09.1994 and during this period, no report of their involvement in any criminal case has been received by this court. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and apparently, the appellants have been reformed during this long span of time, thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail now. 9. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and apparently, the appellants have been reformed during this long span of time, thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail now. 9. The appellants were awarded maximum sentence of 5 years for the offence under Section 307 IPC and lesser punishment for the other offences. They have remained behind the bars for some time during trial and thereafter from the date of arrest till grant of bail by this court. No material has been placed on record to show that his conduct and behaviour within jail was not good. 10. In this background and in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellants, their criminal antecedents, their status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentences to the term of imprisonment that the appellants have already undergone till date. 11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 12.09.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.35/1993 is affirmed but the quantum of sentences awarded by the learned trial court for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 323, 447 and 447/34 IPC is modified to the extent that the sentences the appellants have undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. 12. The appeal is allowed in part. 13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 14. Record be sent back to the trial court.