JASBIR SINGH, J.

(1) OCCURRENCE is alleged to have taken place on the intervening night of 31/7/1986/1/8/1986. It was allegation against the appellant that he had entered the residential house of Mithu Singh, injured and assaulted him with knife. FIR No. 204 dated 1/8/1986 was recorded against him under Sections 307 and 452 of IPC. After completion of investigation, final report was submitted before the competent court. Charges were framed for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 452 IPC. Prosecution then led evidence to prove its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him. In defence, he produced one Kartar Singh as DWI and closed his evidence. Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, as led by both the parties and looking into the entire record, came to a conclusion that prosecution had failed to make out any case under Section 307 IPC, however, appellant was found guilty of commission of an offence punishable under Sections 324 and 452 IPC and was convicted and sentenced in undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 for commission of an offence under Section 324 IPC. He was also sentenced to under go RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 150. 00 for commission of an offence under Section 452 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo RI for two months and three months respectively.

(2) IT is not necessary to refer to further details of this case, as counsel appearing for the appellant has addressed arguments, only regarding quantum of sentence.

(3) MR. Bawa, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that appellant was of 24 years of age, when the alleged occurrence took place. May be due to but young age, without knowing the consequences of his act, he had committed that offence. He further stated that how he is a grown up individual and is residing with his family in a very peaceful manner. It is further contended that sword of conviction had been hanging over the head of the appellant for the last 16 years and it had its desired effect of reforming him. Counsel further states that after his conviction in this case, appellant had not involved in any other criminal activity. He is the only bread earner of his family and if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, it is likely to have an adverse effect, not only on him but also on his family. Peace and tranquillity in the village is likely to be affected. Counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court that appellant had spent about four months behind the bars, before he was granted bail by the competent court. By referring to above mentioned facts, counsel prays that sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the one already undergone.

(4) THIS prayer has vehemently been opposed by Mr. G. P. S. Nagra, AAG Haryana appearing for the State. He has stated that guilt of the appellant is proved on record and punishment is in proportion to the offence committed by him and prayed that appeal be dismissed and conviction and sentence be upheld.

(5) PURPOSE of criminal law is to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society and also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. This Court feels that due to fear of law, as has been stated by the counsel for the appellant he had reformed himself and is now residing a very peaceful life.

(6) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamfit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), opined as under: Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the older. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law on attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law. In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 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. Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh. 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. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab. Similarly, a Single Bench of this court in a case titled as Behari Lal v. State of (U. T.) Chandiqarh while decidinci a matter for commission of an offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by taking note of judgments of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia and Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reduced sentence of the accused therein to the one already undergone.

(7) KEEPING in view the fact that occurrence in this case, had taken place in the month of August, 1986, appellant remained behind the bars for about four months during trial. Trial was concluded on 10/4/1987 and since then his appeal is pending before this Court for the last 16 years. This Court feels, in view off acts and circumstances of this case, appellant deserves a lenient and reformative treatment. As per information supplied by counsel, appellant is now living life of a disciplined citizen. Lurking fear might have remained in his mind throughout the past 16 years that on one or the other day, he will be sent behind the bars. This Court feels that this fear of sending him behind the bars has reformed him and accordingly purpose of criminal law justice system has been achieved. As such, conviction is upheld, however, sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by him and punishment of fine is enhanced to Rs. 10,000. 00, over and above the fine already imposed, by the trial court.

(8) WITH a view to safeguard the interest of the injured and keeping in view the opinion of their Lordships of Supreme Court, in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, it is ordered that amount of fine be paid to Mithu Singh, injured, by way of compensation. Appellant is directed to deposit amount of fine within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, his appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit of fine, trial court will issue a notice to Mithu Singh, injured/his legal representatives and disburse that amount forthwith to him/them.

(9) WITH above modifications, appeal is partly allowed and is disposed of. Appeal disposed of accordingly.