Hon'ble SHARMA, J.— This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment/order dated 18.9.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Malpura, District Tonk in Sessions Case No. 14/2006, whereby the learned court below convicted him for the offences under Section 308, 325, 323, 341 IPC and sentenced him as under:

u/S. 308 IPC: To undergo 2-1/2 years RI with a fine of Rs. 5000/-; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 5 months' imprisonment.

u/S. 325 IPC: To undergo 2 years RI with a fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' imprisonment.

u/S. 323 IPC: To undergo 6 months' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 10 days' imprisonment.

u/S. 341 IPC: To undergo 1 months' RI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 10 days imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report was submitted by the complainant Madan Lal at Police Station, Todaraisingh. On the basis of said complaint, the police registered FIR No. 160/2006 for the offence under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 308 IPC. Thereafter the investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the police filed the challan before the court concerned. Thereafter the charges were framed against the accused person, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses. The statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment/order dated 18.9.2007 has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated here-in-above.

3. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place in the year 2006 i.e. about 9 years' ago from today; the appellant is facing the trial since the last 9 years; when the occurrence took place, the appellant was young and now the appellant is old aged person; the accused appellant has remained in custody for about 92 days; the appellant is married person and having the children of marriageable age, he is not the previously convicted person; hence either he should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC; and if not; then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above.

5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that neither the benefit of probation should be given to the appellant nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I do not think it proper to release the accused appellant on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed;

(ii) His conviction is maintained;

(iii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above.

(iv) The sentence of the accused appellant was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled.

8. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document