JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2006 and order of sentence dated 24.06.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IInd, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No.311 of 2000, in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No.24 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. Case No.242 of 2000, whereby and where under the sole appellant was convicted under sections 307,324 and 341 of IPC and ordered to undergo R.I. for 7 years u/s 307 of IPC, R.I. for 2 years u/s 324 of IPC, however, no separate sentence was passed u/s 341 of IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The convict is further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed undergo R.I. for 3 months. 2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of written report dt.08.03.2000 of Md. Jahid Ansari (PW-5) addressed to the Officer-In- Charge Balidih police station in the district of Bokaro. It was alleged by the informant Md. Jahid Ansari (PW – 5), in the written report dated 08.03.2000 that he was the son of Rahamgul Ansari injured (PW – 6), who was returning home from Swindih on 7/3/2000 at about 7:00 PM at night and when he reached near Zora Nala bridge in Makdumpur, Abdul Rahim @ Bablu Ansari (appellant) and Md. Hussain Ansari have stabbed his father in the stomach causing injury at three places then the Abdul Rahim further assaulted his father on his neck with Bhujali causing sharp cut bleeding injury. Zeer Ali Ansari was present at the place of occurrence and as per conspiracy hatched by him this occurrence took place. During the occurrence villagers were passing through by motor cycle and due to head light of motor cycle the accused fled away. His father was conscious till he was brought to hospital and informed about the occurrence. He was also stating that the accused were abusing him. 3. On this information Balidih P.S. case no.24/2000 under sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 506,120-B of IPC was registered and charge for investigation was given to Sri. A.K. Singh sub-inspector who after thorough investigation has filed charge-sheet against the present accused under aforesaid sections. Accordingly cognizance was taken and after commitment the record was sent to the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Bokaro and from there the same was transferred to the Court of Asstt. A.K. Singh sub-inspector who after thorough investigation has filed charge-sheet against the present accused under aforesaid sections. Accordingly cognizance was taken and after commitment the record was sent to the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Bokaro and from there the same was transferred to the Court of Asstt. Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro where the charges were framed against the accused under section 341, 342, 323, 324, and 307 of IPC to which, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. After closing of evidence of prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C as no defence witness was given so the record was fixed for argument. Meanwhile the accused left attending the court hence he was declared absconder vide order dated 06.03.2006 by Ld. Asstt. Sessions Judge-II. Subsequently on 03.04.2006, he surrendered and was taken into custody. Later on the Ld. Sessions Judge, Bokaro granted him bail and the record was transferred to the file of Learned Addl. Sesions Judge, Fast Track Court-IInd, Bokaro for favour of disposal. Defence is complete denial of the accusation with the assertion that the accused is innocent committed no offence. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the manner of occurrence and further pleaded his innocence and the learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Heard learned defence counsel Ms. Saman Ahmed and learned Addl.P.P. Mr. Tarun Kumar appearing on behalf of the state. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant 6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant does not want to argue this case on merit and therefore argument on behalf of the appellant is confined only on the point of sentence. It has been pointed out that the appellant, over a period of time from the date of occurrence has reached to his middle age about 49 years old and he had already remained in jail for about more than 2 & 1/2 years in this case. Further it has also been pointed out that the alleged occurrence has taken place as far back as in the year 2000, about 22 years ago and this appellant is suffering with trauma, misery and hardship of the criminal prosecution for a long period of time. Further it has also been pointed out that the alleged occurrence has taken place as far back as in the year 2000, about 22 years ago and this appellant is suffering with trauma, misery and hardship of the criminal prosecution for a long period of time. Further it has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is ready to pay a substantive amount by way of compensation, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and sentence of fine by way of compensation is imposed as he has already remained in jail for a substantive period of time. Arguments advanced on behalf of State 7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the state opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC which is serious in nature, along with section 324 and 341 of IPC and the learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It has further been pointed out that the injured PW-6 has rightly supported the case of the prosecution as presented in the FIR and he had sustained the several injuries, which has been supported by the doctor PW-7 also and PW-5 informant and thus this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Appraisal & Findings 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case including the lower court records. 9. It is manifest that the appellant does not want to argue this case on merit and the argument is confined on the point of sentence only. Accordingly this Court needs not go into the merit of the appeal and this Court is left with the option to uphold the judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2006 and to consider the order of sentence dated 24.06.2006 in the light of the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IInd, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No.311 of 2000, in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No.24 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. Case No.242 of 2000. 10. 10. So far as sentence is concerned it is found that the learned court below has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 307, 324 and 341 of IPC and maximum sentence of imprisonment was awarded for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC is 7 years and further a fine of Rs.2000/- was also imposed and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo R.I. for 3 months. It appears that over a period of time, the appellant has reached to its middle age, i.e. about 49 years old. Further it appears that there is nothing on record about the criminal history of the appellant and maximum period of sentence awarded to the appellant is 7 years and it appears that he has remained in custody for the period of 2 and 1/2 years including under trial period i.e. pre-conviction period and post-conviction period. Further he is suffering with trauma and misery of criminal prosecution for a long period of time, i.e. 22 years and therefore in view of these mitigating factors, a lenient view in awarding the sentence is taken for the ends of justice and the purpose of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and a reasoned amount of fine should be imposed upon the appellant by way of compensation in order to give it to the injured PW-6. 11. Accordingly this Court upholds the judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IInd, Bokaro, in S.T. No.311 of 2000, in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No.24 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. Case No.242 of 2000 and sets-aside the order of sentence dated 24.06.2006, passed by the learned court below under section 307 and 324 of IPC. 12. Having upheld the judgment of conviction, this Court awards the sentence of imprisonment to the appellant Abdul Rahim Ansari @ Abdul Rahim @ Bablu Ansari for a term of the period already undergone by him and further imposes upon him a sentence of fine to a sum Rs.25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) by way of compensation under all the heads/counts in order to give it to the victim PW 6 Rahamgul Ansari son of late Lal Md. Ansari, resident of village-Sijua, police station-Balidih, district-Bokaro. Ansari, resident of village-Sijua, police station-Balidih, district-Bokaro. Since, the appellant Abdul Rahim Ansari is on bail and, therefore, a period of four months’ time is given to him from today to make the payment of sentence of fine of Rs. 25000/-(Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) by way of compensation in order to give it to the victim PW 6 Rahamgul Ansari son of late Lal Md. Ansari, resident of village- Sijua, police station-Balidih, district-Bokaro. 13. In case of the default of payment of fine amount of Rs. 25000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) by way compensation in order to give it to victim- injured P.W. 6- Rahamgul Ansari, so awarded by this Court within the stipulated period of time, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellant, he will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine so awarded by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law to ensure that the appellant serves the sentence of imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine. 14. The appellant may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment he deposits the fine amount, he (the appellant) shall be released forthwith on deposit of the said fine amount and he shall be discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellant, the notice shall be sent to the victim injured P.W.6- Rahamgul Ansari and on their appearance the said fine amount, if so deposited by the appellant, shall be disbursed to him. In case, if the said victim is not traceable or not available or not found at the given address, or does not present before the Court after the notice, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim-injured P.W.6- Rahamgul Ansari, as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority(DLSA), Bokaro, if required. 15. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sentence. 16. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the learned court below along with the Lower Court Records to do needful and for its compliance in this regard in letter and spirit.