JUDGMENT : Farjand Ali, J. 1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 22.05.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.11/1992, whereby the learned trial court has convicted him for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default ofpayment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment of two months. 2. 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. 3. Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the record are that the incident in question took place on 18.01.1987 at about 8:30– 8:45 AM near the shop of one Sindhi, situated close to the house of the injured witnesses at village Rayta. On hearing a commotion, PW-1 Rafique Mohammad came out of his house and saw his father PW-2 Fayyaz Mohammad being assaulted by the accused persons Balu, Amar Chand, Dhrup Singh, Balu’s aunt and Balu’s wife, who were allegedly armed with a knife, sticks and stones. It was alleged that accused Baloo inflicted knife blows on the head of PW-2 Fayyaz Mohammad, whereas accused Amar Chand and Dhrup Singh caused injuries to him with sticks, and the women accompanying them threw stones. When PW-1 Rafique tried to intervene, accused Balu allegedly bit him on his hand. PW-2 Fayyaz Mohammad fell to the ground due to the assault and became semi-conscious. PW-3 Rasheeda Begum also reached the spot and supported the version that the accused persons collectively assaulted her father Fayyaz Mohammad with sharp and blunt weapons. Thereafter, PW-1 Rafique, PW-2 Fayyaz and others proceeded towards the police outpost, but on the way they met police officials who took them to the hospital, where PW-2 Fayyaz Mohammad was admitted. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were medically examined, and multiple incised as well as blunt injuries were recorded. Thereafter, PW-1 Rafique, PW-2 Fayyaz and others proceeded towards the police outpost, but on the way they met police officials who took them to the hospital, where PW-2 Fayyaz Mohammad was admitted. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were medically examined, and multiple incised as well as blunt injuries were recorded. The police thereafter registered a case under Sections 307 , 324, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC , prepared the site plan, seized blood-stained clothes and the knife allegedly produced by Rafique, arrested several accused persons, and eventually filed the charge-sheet before the competent court. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 Rafiq Mohammad, P.W.2 Fayaz Mohammad, P.W.3 Rasheeda Begum, P.W.4 Kanhiya Lal, P.W.5 Baloo Ram, P.W.6 Dr. Ramesh Chandra, P.W.7 Wasandas, P.W.8 Man Singh and P.W.9 Bahadur Singh. The documentary evidence, including injury reports, site plan, seizure memos and arrest memos, were also exhibited. In their statements under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and claimed false implication, asserting that in fact they were assaulted by the complainant party. The defence examined D.W.1 Babu Ram, D.W.2 Amarchand, D.W.3 Dr. Kailash Chand Jain and D.W.4 Dr. Kailash Chandra Laddha in support of their plea. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC but found sufficient evidence to hold the accused guilty of causing simple injuries by use of a sharp-edged weapon. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 324 and sentenced him to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default, further imprisonment of two months. 5. Learned Amicus Curiae arguing the appeal on behalf of the appellants submitted that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC without properly appreciating the evidence on record. It was contended that the prosecution witnesses, namely P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 3, had given inconsistent and contradictory statements regarding the sequence of events, the identity of the assailant, and the manner in which the injuries were caused. Several vital aspects, such as the exact time of the incident and the nature of the injuries, were not consistently described, which rendered the evidence doubtful. Several vital aspects, such as the exact time of the incident and the nature of the injuries, were not consistently described, which rendered the evidence doubtful. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant had no prior enmity with the injured, and the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel rather than any deliberate attempt to cause grievous hurt. The medical evidence revealed that the injuries were simple and did not corroborate the prosecution’s assertion of a severe assault with a weapon. It was also submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that some independent witnesses present at the scene were not examined weakened the prosecution case. The trial court had failed to consider that omissions and contradictions in the testimony of material witnesses significantly affected the reliability of the prosecution’s story. Learned counsel emphasized that there was no clear evidence of premeditation or specific intent on the part of the appellant to cause serious injury. Procedural lapses during the investigation, including incomplete collection of evidence and lack of corroboration, were ignored by the trial court. 6. Finally, it was submitted that the appellant had an unblemished antecedent record, had cooperated with the investigation, and that the sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine was excessive and disproportionate to the circumstances of the case. It was urged that the conviction and sentence deserved to be set aside or, at the very least, the sentence be substantially reduced. 7. On the question of sentence, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the incident is of considerable antiquity, having occurred in the year 1987. The appellant was about 32 years old at the time, and he is now approximately 70 years of age, suffering from ailments associated with advanced age. He is a person of modest means, belonging to the lower strata of society, and has endured the prolonged ordeal of a criminal case for nearly 38 years. This was the first criminal case ever registered against him, and apart from the present matter, he has no criminal antecedents. It was emphasized that he has led a peaceful and law-abiding life for almost four decades, and no useful purpose would be served by sending him to prison at this stage to undergo the remaining sentence. It was therefore urged that the sentence awarded to the appellant be suitably modified. 8. It was emphasized that he has led a peaceful and law-abiding life for almost four decades, and no useful purpose would be served by sending him to prison at this stage to undergo the remaining sentence. It was therefore urged that the sentence awarded to the appellant be suitably modified. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court and submitted that the conviction is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It was argued that the testimony of the injured witness is consistent, trustworthy and fully corroborated by the medical evidence, and therefore, the trial court rightly placed reliance upon it. The prosecution maintained that the contradictions pointed out by the appellant are minor in nature and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. It was further submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent findings after considering all relevant material, and no ground is made out to interfere with the conviction in appeal. The Public Prosecutor, however, fairly admitted that the incident pertains to a very old case and that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents. Even so, it was urged that the conviction ought to be upheld as the offence stands duly proved by reliable evidence. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. The Court observes that the trial court has meticulously appreciated the evidence and correctly held the appellant guilty under Section 324 of the IPC . The testimony of the injured witnesses, P.W.1 Rafique Mohammad, P.W.2 Fayyaz Mohammad, and P.W.3 Rasheeda Begum, is credible and consistent. Their accounts of the assault, including the use of a sharp-edged weapon, are corroborated by medical evidence (P.W.6 Dr. Ramesh Chandra) which confirms incised injuries on the person of the injured. Minor contradictions or omissions in their testimony do not materially affect the core of the prosecution case. The defense plea of false implication is unsupported by independent evidence. The site plan, seizure of the blood-stained knife, and other documentary evidence further strengthen the prosecution case. There is clear proof that the appellant actively participated in causing injuries by means of a sharp-edged weapon. The defense plea of false implication is unsupported by independent evidence. The site plan, seizure of the blood-stained knife, and other documentary evidence further strengthen the prosecution case. There is clear proof that the appellant actively participated in causing injuries by means of a sharp-edged weapon. Accordingly, the Court finds that the conviction of the appellant under by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is legally justified and requires no interference. 11. As regards the question of quantum of sentence, it is pertinent to note that the incident occurred in 1987. At the time, the appellant was approximately 32 years of age; he is now about 70 years old and suffers from ailments commonly associated with advanced age. The dispute arose over a trivial matter, and the injuries caused were not grievous. The appellant has already endured the prolonged ordeal of this criminal case for nearly 38 years, including a period of incarceration. This was the first criminal case ever registered against him, and he has no other criminal antecedents. Throughout this period, the appellant has had the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, living under the shadow of potential imprisonment. 12. Considering his advanced age, health conditions, modest means, and social background, sending the appellant back to prison at this stage would serve no useful purpose. The principle of reformative and rehabilitative punishment is well recognized, and there is no indication that the appellant has failed to reform during this prolonged period. The trial court had imposed a sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment, part of which has already been served. Additional incarceration now would be unduly harsh and would achieve no meaningful objective. 13. In view of the facts of the case, the appellant’s age, his lack of criminal antecedents, social and economic circumstances, and the prolonged mental and financial hardship endured over nearly four decades, and having regard to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal [ (1998) 9 SCC 678 ] and Alister Anthony Pereira v. State of Maharashtra [ 2012 2 SCC 648 ] , this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. 14. 14. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC by the trial court is affirmed, but the sentence is modified so that the period of imprisonment already served 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.