(1) THE respondents were tried by the learned Judge, Special court for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for an occurrence which took place on 13/4/1984 resulting in the death of Amarjit Singh. The trial court after appraisal of the evidence acquitted Amar Singh and Gurdev Singh, Respondents 2 and 3, but convicted Bira Singh, Respondent 1 for an offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code after acquitting him of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the age of Bira Singh (then 18 years) the trial court, however, gave him the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and directed him to furnish a bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to keep peace, be of good behaviour and to attend the court as and when called upon to do so for a period of two years. The State of Punjab being aggrieved of the order of the learned Judge, Special court dated 28/2/1985 has come up in appeal.

(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties, whereas Bira Singh. Respondent I when examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code admitted having caused an injury to the deceased Amarjit Singh, Amar Singh and Gurdev Singh Respondents 2 and 3 denied the prosecution case and alleged false implication.

(3) WE have gone through the judgment of the learned Judge. Special court as also the evidence on the record. In our opinion, the appreciation of the evidence by the trial court is sound and proper and it appears to us that the trial court rightly found that the prosecution had not been able to establish the case against Amar Singh and Gurdev Singh- The reasons given by the trial court are cogent and appeal to us. The acquittal of Amar Singh and Gurdev Singh is well merited and does not call for any interference.

(4) SO far as Bira Singh. Respondent 1 is concerned, as already noticed, he admitted in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to have caused the injury to the deceased. The manner in which the injury was caused has also not been denied by him. From the medical evidence on the record, we find that only one blow had been given by Bira Singh on the left flank of the deceased with the sella. The dimension of the injury, as noticed by Dr Jaspal Singh, Public Witness 1 is "2 cm x 1/2 cm". Admittedly, Bira Singh did not repeat the injury after having caused the above-noted injury. No intention on the part of Bira Singh to cause the death of Amarjit Singh could be inferred in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The trial court was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the offence for which Bira Singh could be convicted could only be the one under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Good and sound reasons have been given by the trial court in support of its finding and nothing has been brought to our notice from which we may disagree with the findings recorded by the trial court. The finding of the trial court therefore convicting Respondent I Bira Singh for an offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code does not call for any interference.

(5) SO far as the sentence is concerned, we find that the trial court let off Bira Singh by giving him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. In our opinion, it was misguided leniency shown to Respondent 1 Bira Singh. Such leniency in the matter of sentence encourages a criminal and the society suffers. The courts must strike a proper balance while awarding sentence. The trial court should have imposed appropriate sentence on the respondent. However, Bira Singh executed the bond as directed by the trial court in 1985. The occurrence took place more than 10 years ago. We. therefore, do not think it appropriate, at this distant time, to send Bira Singh back to jail by imposing a substantive sentence of imprisonment on him. Therefore while setting aside the direction of the trial court of giving the benefit