The reformatory aspect of punishment and consideration of the already undergone period in modifying the sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Singh, J.

1. Learned Counsel for the appellants has very fairly stated that appellant No. 2, Amar Singh has already served the sentence and in view of the above, the appeal against the appellant No. 2, Amar Singh has become infructuous.

2. Having regard to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appeal against appellant No. 2, Amar Singh is dismissed as infructuous.

3. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.3.2018 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Budaun in S.T. No. 472 of 2014 (State v. Munendra and others), under sections 307 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Bisauli, District Budaun, whereby learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further additional imprisonment for three months, one year rigorous imprisonment under section 504 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further additional imprisonment for one month.

4. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.6.2014 the complainant along with his other family members had returned back from the 'Lagun ceremony' of his daughter Vimlesh and his other daughter Kanti had come from her in-laws house to attend the marriage. On 15.6.2014 all the family members were present at home in preparation for the procession. Resident of same village Munendra son of Amar Singh who was armed with firearm started abusing them. Alongwith Munendra, the residents of same village namely, Mahipal and Amar Singh, son of Natthu, who were having firearms in their hands also came before us and started abusing. When they objected for abusing then at about 6:00 p.m. Munendra started firing with the intention to kill us, which was hit Kanti, as a result of which she collapsed on the 'kharanja'. The incident was witnessed by the residents of the village namely, Gaurav Kumar, Arvind, son of Chatrapal, Dinesh, son of Munshi and several others. All the accused persons after firing ran away towards fields.

5. At the very outset, Sri Umesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, stated that he does not propose to challenge the impugned judgment and order on its merits, He, however, prayed for modification of the order of the sentence for the period already undergone by the appellant.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that only single shot was fired by the accused Munendra and no overt act of any kind has been attributed to appellant No. 1, Mahipal. He next submitted that at the time of include the accused was aged about 25 years and at present the accused is more than 31 years of age. He has next submitted that it was the first offence of the accused and after conviction the accused had not indulged in any other criminal activity. He further submitted that on the question of legality of sentence he is not pressing this appeal and only pressing on the quantum of sentence and he has prayed for taking lenient view considering the family status, Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment of five years and that he has already undergone two years before conviction and about two years after conviction, meaning thereby that he has undergone about four years of the awarded sentence.

7. While dealing with the quantum of sentence, Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration AIR 1973 SC 1457, held as under:

"Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations, which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act, which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, bot