JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 16.03.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi in Special Sessions Case No.15/2011, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :- Offence for which convicted Sentence, fine and default sentence Section 323 of the IPC 3 months’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo, simple imprisonment of 15 days Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act 6 months’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo, simple imprisonment of 15 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 11.05.2011, complainant Hakmaram S/o Punma Ji Meghwal, resident of Manora, submitted a written report at the Police Station Barlut to the effect that on that day at 10.30 p.m. a function was going on at his sister's house. At that time, Uttam Kumar Rawal came there and started abusing and hurling caste related abuses towards his son Praveen Kumar and also slapped him 2-3 times. The persons standing there intervened, upon which, the accused went away giving a life threat. 3. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No.54/2011 for the offences under Sections 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was registered and after usual investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the present appellant. 4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and 7 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed the son of the complainant owed him money and a mobile phone and upon asking for the same, the complainant party got infuriated and lodged a false case against him. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed the son of the complainant owed him money and a mobile phone and upon asking for the same, the complainant party got infuriated and lodged a false case against him. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 16.03.2012, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal. 5. 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 pertains to the year 2011, in which, the appellant, who was then a young man, asked for the money and mobile he owed and in the heat of moment, he hurled some abuses towards the son of the complainant. It was the first criminal case registered against him. He had no criminal antecedents. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct in the impugned judgment. He has faced the rigor of criminal case for good 12 years, therefore, taking a lenient view the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the material available on the record. 8. 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. 9. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 2011. At that time, the accused appellant was young man. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 9. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 2011. At that time, the accused appellant was young man. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellant has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 12 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and since the appellant is living peacefully since last 12 years as no report contrary to that has been received by this court, thus, it can be assumed that he has been reformed and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail at this stage as much misery has already been inflicted upon him. 10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the case of the appellant deserves to be dealt with leniency. The appellant also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases 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 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentences imposed upon him for each count is reduced to the one already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi in Special Sessions Case No.15/2011 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offences under Section 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His 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.