JUDGMENT :

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 12.09.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.35/1993, whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced them as under :

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.05.1991 at 12.30 a.m., SHO Police Station Nokha received a Parcha Bayan of one Dungar Ram, who was admitted at the PHC, Nokha Mandi, to the effect that at about 12 o'clock on that night, when he was sleeping in his house, someone knocked the door. He opened the door seeing his brother Gopal. At that time, the appellant Bajrang @ Bhaida caught hold of his throat and asked another appellant Ramzan Sika who was standing beside to kill him, on which, he gave a knife blow on the left side of the chest of the complainant. Thereafter both the appellants started giving him knife blows. Hearing the hue and cry of the complainant, his wife and neighbors gathered there and upon their intervention, the appellants ran away from the spot. His brothers put him on a cart and took to the hospital. It is stated that appellant Bajrang had previous enmity with the complainant. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, FIR No.110/1991 for the offences under Sectiosn 307, 324 and 34 came to be registered and the investigation commenced. The accused were arrested and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against them for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323/34 and 457 of the IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nokha, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the trial court for trial.

3. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants for the offences under Sections 307 and 307/34, 326 and 326/34, 324 and 324/34, 323 and 323/34 and 454 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, explanation was sought from the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused did not choose to examine any witness, but exhibited 2 documents. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above vide judgment dated 12.09.1994, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the incident is of the year 1991 and now more than 32 years have elapsed since then. The appellants were 26 -27 years of age at the time of the incident. As per the medical reports and the statement of the doctor, all the injuries were simple in nature. The appellants are not the persons of criminal nature, which is revealing from the fact that they are on bail since the year 1994 and are living peacefully a