JUDGMENT : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.04.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 126/1992, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under: Name of the appellant Offence for which convicted Sentence of imprisonment, fine and default sentence Ram Niwas Section 324 IPC 9 months' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment Manni Ram Section 326 IPC 2 years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment 2. It is reported that the appellant No. 2 Manni Ram S/o Ganesha Ram has expired. In view of the above, the instant appeal is dismissed as abated to the extent of the appellant No. 2. 3. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 30.01.1991 at 09.45 a.m. injured Guman Singh submitted a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajgarh to the effect that in the morning at about 07.45 a.m. he and his brother-in-law were returning to home after attending natural call. When they reached in the lane ahead of the house of Bajrang Lal Jat, accused Jugram, Manni Ram, Rohitash and Ram Niwas came out of their house. Ram Niwas and Manni Ram were armed with axes, Jugram was having a stick and Rohitash was having a lathi. Jugram incited others to kill the complainant, upon which Ram Niwas accused an injury with axe on left side of his neck. Accused Manni Ram also gave an axe blow with an intention to kill him, which landed on wrist of right hand. Accused Jugram hit with a stick on the wrist of his left hand. The complainant and his brother-in-law cried out for help, upon which Bhagwana Ram and Karni Singh intervened. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid Parcha Bayan, FIR No. 23/1991 for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 341/34 of the IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant for the offence under Section 307, 326, 324 and 34 of the IPC. 5. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid Parcha Bayan, FIR No. 23/1991 for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 341/34 of the IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant for the offence under Section 307, 326, 324 and 34 of the IPC. 5. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 307, 326 and 341 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and various 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 to be falsely implicated in the case due to old enmity and litigation. One witness was examined in defence. 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 for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC vide judgment dated 27.04.1994, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal. 6. 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. Submits that the incident pertains to the year 1991. The appellant Ram Niwas was a young boy aged 19 years at that time. Under the heat of the moment he caused injury to the complainant, but he did not intend to kill him, which is evident from the fact that the trial court has acquitted him from the offence under Section 307 IPC. It was the first criminal case registered against the appellant. 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 32 years and has languished in jail for 2 days during trial, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. 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 32 years and has languished in jail for 2 days during trial, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for 2 days and that the incident is very old and much time has already gone by since then. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record. 9. 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. 10. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 1991. At that time, the accused appellant was 19 years of age and now he has turned 49. 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 32 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He has remained incarcerated for 2 days during trial. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and since the appellant is living peacefully since last 32 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. 11. 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. 11. 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 Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra, (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. 12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 27.04.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 126/1992 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC 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. 13. The appeal is allowed in part. 14. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 15. Record be sent back to the trial court.