The court considered the appellant's age, criminal antecedents, status in society, financial hardship, and mental agony in modifying the quantum of sentence for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.04.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 126/1992, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. It is reported that the appellant No. 2 Manni Ram S/o Ganesha Ram has expired. In view of the above, the instant appeal is dismissed as abated to the extent of the appellant No. 2.

3. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 30.01.1991 at 09.45 a.m. injured Guman Singh submitted a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajgarh to the effect that in the morning at about 07.45 a.m. he and his brother-in-law were returning to home after attending natural call. When they reached in the lane ahead of the house of Bajrang Lal Jat, accused Jugram, Manni Ram, Rohitash and Ram Niwas came out of their house. Ram Niwas and Manni Ram were armed with axes, Jugram was having a stick and Rohitash was having a lathi. Jugram incited others to kill the complainant, upon which Ram Niwas accused an injury with axe on left side of his neck. Accused Manni Ram also gave an axe blow with an intention to kill him, which landed on wrist of right hand. Accused Jugram hit with a stick on the wrist of his left hand. The complainant and his brother-in-law cried out for help, upon which Bhagwana Ram and Karni Singh intervened.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid Parcha Bayan, FIR No. 23/1991 for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 341/34 of the IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant for the offence under Section 307, 326, 324 and 34 of the IPC.

5. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 307, 326 and 341 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case due to old enmity and litigation. One witness was examined in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC vide judgment dated 27.04.1994, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

6. 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. Submits that the incident pertains to the year 1991. The appellant Ram Niwas was a young boy aged 19 years at that time. Under the heat of the moment he caused injury to the complainant, but he did not intend to kill him, which is evident from the fact that the trial court has acquitted him from the offence under Section 307 IPC. It was the first criminal case registered against the appellant. He had no criminal antecedents. No adverse remark has been p