ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC has been preferred assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.1995, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.64/1994. 2. The appeal was filed by three appellants, who were convicted by the trial court, however, the appellant No.2 Hakam Singh and the appellant No.3 Sita Singh @ Sarjeet Singh have passed away and therefore, this court vide order dated 13.05.2025 has dismissed the appeal as abated to their extent. Thus, the appeal is being adjudicated by the instant judgment only for the appellant No.1 Balbir Singh @ Vira Singh, who has been convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment, as under :- Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Fine imposed Default sentence in case of nonpayment of fine Section 447 of the IPC One month’s R.I. - - Section 307 of the IPC Three years’ R.I. Rs.500/- Two months’ R.I. Section 324 of the IPC One year’s R.I. - - 3. None appears on behalf of the appellant to argue the matter Looking to the fact that the case is very old, in the interest of justice, Ms. Nikita Vaishnav, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant under the Free Legal Aid Scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA). Her fee shall be paid by the RSLSA in accordance with its rules. With her valuable assistance, the Court proceeded to adjudicate the appeal. 4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the incident occurred on 08.12.1991 in relation to a dispute over possession of agricultural land. According to the prosecution, the complainant party was in possession of the land in question, when the accused persons trespassed upon it and objected to such possession. An altercation ensued which soon escalated into a physical assault. It was alleged that during the course of the incident, the accused persons assaulted the complainant and other members of his party with lathis and sharp-edged weapons. The specific role attributed to Balbir Singh @ Vira Singh was that he inflicted a blow with a sharp-edged weapon on the head of the injured, which, as per medical opinion, was dangerous to life. 5. The specific role attributed to Balbir Singh @ Vira Singh was that he inflicted a blow with a sharp-edged weapon on the head of the injured, which, as per medical opinion, was dangerous to life. 5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the complainant, FIR No.273/1991 was registered at the Police Station Sadulshahar for offences under Sections 307 , 324, 323, 147, 149 and 447 of the IPC . The investigation was conducted in the usual course, during which site inspection was carried out and site plan was prepared, blood-stained soil and other articles were seized and the accused were arrested. The injured persons were medically examined, and their injury reports were prepared. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the competent court. 6. During trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and prodcued 34 exhbits. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they denied the allegations and claimed false implication on account of land dispute. No defence evidence was adduced. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 447 , 307 and 324 IPC , awarding the sentences as detailed hereinabove. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant (Amicus Curiae) assailed the impugned judgment both on the question of conviction as well as on the quantum of sentence. On the point of conviction, it was submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. It was argued that the incident arose out of a long-standing land dispute and that the occurrence was a result of a sudden quarrel in the heat of the moment. Learned counsel contended that there was no premeditation or prior meeting of minds and, therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC , namely the intention or knowledge to cause death, are conspicuously absent. It was urged that the prosecution witnesses are interested and partisan, being closely related to each other, and their testimony ought to have been scrutinized with greater caution. It was urged that the prosecution witnesses are interested and partisan, being closely related to each other, and their testimony ought to have been scrutinized with greater caution. It was further submitted that though the injury was caused on the head, the same did not result in any fatal consequence and the medical evidence does not conclusively establish that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On these premises, learned counsel argued that the conviction of the appellant under is unsustainable and at best, a lesser offence could be said to be made out. 8. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant laid considerable stress on the mitigating circumstances attending the case. It was submitted that the incident is of the year 1991 and more than three decades have elapsed since then, during which the appellant has undergone immense mental agony and trauma of prolonged criminal proceedings, with the sword of Damocles hanging over his head. Learned counsel pointed out that at the time of the incident, the appellant was a young man of about 21 years of age and had no previous criminal antecedents. It was further submitted that the appellant remained in judicial custody from 17.12.1991 to 08.07.1993, thereby undergoing a substantial portion of the maximum sentence of three years awarded under Section 307 IPC , and that after conviction, he again remained in jail for about ten days. Learned counsel emphasized that the appellant was released on bail during part of the trial and thereafter has been on bail for nearly three decades pursuant to suspension of sentence in the present appeal, and throughout this long period, there has been no allegation of misuse of liberty or involvement in any other criminal activity. It was also contended that the appellant is the sole breadwinner of his family, has settled down in life, and has been leading a peaceful and law-abiding existence. Learned counsel submitted that two co-accused appellants have died during the pendency of the appeal, which itself reflects the inordinate delay in disposal of the matter. In such circumstances, it was urged that sending the appellant back to jail at this belated stage would serve no useful or meaningful purpose, either from the standpoint of deterrence or reformation. Learned counsel submitted that two co-accused appellants have died during the pendency of the appeal, which itself reflects the inordinate delay in disposal of the matter. In such circumstances, it was urged that sending the appellant back to jail at this belated stage would serve no useful or meaningful purpose, either from the standpoint of deterrence or reformation. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed that even if the conviction is maintained, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction recorded by the learned trial court does not call for any interference. However, learned Public Prosecutor fairly admitted that there are certain mitigating circumstances on record which may be relevant for consideration on the question of sentence. It was submitted that the incident is of the year 1991, the appeal has remained pending for a long period, and the appellant has already undergone a part of the sentence and remained on bail for several years. In view of these circumstances, while supporting the conviction, learned Public Prosecutor left it to the discretion of the Court to consider leniency on the quantum of sentence, in accordance with law. 10. Upon a meticulous examination of the entire record, including the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the material evidence produced, this Court finds that the conviction recorded by the trial court is fully warranted and does not merit interference. The testimonies of key witnesses, including P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3, are clear, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence and other documentary exhibits on record. The defense plea of alibi and denial was examined but is wholly unsupported by any credible evidence and has rightly been rejected by the trial court. The chain of events, beginning from the incident on 17.12.1991, through the filing of the charge-sheet, and throughout the trial, establishes the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also takes note that the other appellants have passed away, resulting in the abatement of the appeal to that extent. There is no credible ground to interfere with the finding of the trial court on the point of conviction, and the appellant is accordingly held guilty under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Court also takes note that the other appellants have passed away, resulting in the abatement of the appeal to that extent. There is no credible ground to interfere with the finding of the trial court on the point of conviction, and the appellant is accordingly held guilty under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Court, therefore, affirms the conviction, while reserving detailed consideration of the quantum of sentence to the subsequent discussion. 11. In considering the quantum of sentence, this Court is guided by well-established principles laid down by the Supreme Court, including the judgments in Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal [ (1998) 9 SCC 678 ] and Alister Anthony Pereira v. State of Maharashtra [ 2012 2 SCC 648 ] . The process of sentencing is not merely punitive but must take into account theories such as deterrence, retribution, and, increasingly, reformative justice. Among these, the reformative approach has gained acceptance in modern jurisprudence, emphasizing that the purpose of sentencing is to correct and rehabilitate the offender, particularly when mitigating circumstances exist. As the Supreme Court has observed, when there are mitigating circumstances, the focus of the court should be on the crime rather than unduly punishing the criminal, and society must nurture the offender’s guilt with positivity, ensuring that the sentence serves a constructive purpose. 12. In the present case, several mitigating factors weigh heavily in favour of the appellant. The incident occurred in 1991, when the appellant was only 21 years of age. He remained in custody from 17.12.1991 to 08.07.1993, serving the major portion of the maximum sentence of three years. Following conviction, he remained in jail for only ten days, was granted bail during trial, and has since lived on bail for over three decades, during which no criminal antecedents have been recorded against him. He has been the sole breadwinner of his family, and sending him to prison at this stage would serve no fruitful purpose. The prolonged pendency of the proceedings itself constitutes a form of mental incarceration, as observed by the Supreme Court, and the Court must consider the suffering already endured by the appellant over more than thirty years. 13. He has been the sole breadwinner of his family, and sending him to prison at this stage would serve no fruitful purpose. The prolonged pendency of the proceedings itself constitutes a form of mental incarceration, as observed by the Supreme Court, and the Court must consider the suffering already endured by the appellant over more than thirty years. 13. Applying the principles laid down in Haripada Das and Alister Anthony Pereira, this Court recognizes that undue harshness is neither warranted nor just, and that the sentence must be proportionate to the offence while taking into account the age, character, antecedents, and social circumstances of the offender. Considering the totality of circumstances, the Court finds that the appellant has already undergone substantial period of custody, has led a law-abiding life during the pendency of the appeal, and has no criminal antecedents. In the exercise of judicial discretion, balancing the interests of society with the principles of justice and reform, the Court concludes that the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone. 14. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant Balbir Singh for the offences under Section 447 , 307 and 324 as recorded by the trial court is affirmed, but the sentence awarded for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is modified so that the period of imprisonment already served by him since it shall be deemed sufficient and just to meet the ends of justice. The appellant, being on bail, need not surrender, and his bail bonds are discharged. 15. The appeal is allowed in part. 16. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 17. The record be sent back to the trial court. 18. The Amicus Curiae shall be paid her fee by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per rules.