The court may adopt a reformative approach and consider the totality of circumstances, including the mental and financial ordeal faced by the accused, in determining the appropriate sentence and fine.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

1. The accused-appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 324/326/450/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the case bearing FIR No.69 dated 14.9.1997, registered at Police Station Nangal on the allegations that they along with their co-accused Gurdip Singh (who has been declared to be proclaimed offender) inflicted injuries on the person of complainant – Gurmit Chand when he had come to meet his sister and was staying there.

2. The learned trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide judgment and order dated 11/12.10.2000, (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment') convicted the accused-appellants for the commission of offence under Sections 450/506/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as under:

Name of accused Section Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine

Lakhvir Singh 506 IPC RI for 2 years -

and Manjit Singh

@ Kuba

-do- 450 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.2,000/-each RI for 4 months each

-do- 326/34 IPC RI 3 years Rs.3,000/-each RI for 6 months each

All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment/order of conviction/sentence, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court.

4. The present appeal was admitted on 6.11.2000 and the appellants were ordered to be released on bail by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants does not assail the impugned judgment/order of conviction/sentence on merits and instead has prayed for reduction of sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone after taking a lenient view. He then contends that the present occurrence relates to the year 1997 and by now the appellants have faced the agony of protracted trial for more than 13 years and have not mis-used the concession of bail.

6. Learned counsel for the State has filed the custody certificate, which is taken on record, and contended that the appellants do not deserve any sympathetic tilt with regard to quantum of sentence.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. In Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2000(3) Supreme Court 561 (SC), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that in appropriate cases, reformative approach is required to be adopted.

9. In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

10. Similar is the opinion expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 600. In that case in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted. However, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981.

11. To the same effect, is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) RCR (Crl.) 467.

12. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of Supreme Court in Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 486, wherein in a case under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, leniency was shown to the accused in that case and they were ordered to be released on probation.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577, has observed as under:

“Even so on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, we do not feel persuaded to let off the appellant with an imposition of fine only. We, however, thought that sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in this case. We were informed at the Bar and an affidavit sworn by the appellant's wife was also filed before us to the