1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.820 OF 2002 Ibrahim Alibhai Chouhan : Appellant (Orig.Accused No.1) V/s. The State of Maharashtra : Respondent .... None present for the appellant. Mr.D.R.More, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. .... WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.187 OF 2007 Shabbir @ Kaliya Dhus Gaffur Shaikh : Appellant (Orig.Accused No.2) V/s. State of Maharashtra : Respondent .... Mr.J.S.Korpe for the appellant. Mr.D.R.More, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. P.C.: The appellants take exception to the judgement and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bombay, convicting the appellants- 2 accused for the offences punishable under section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.3,000/-. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that P.W.1 Naresh was going on a bicycle on 7.10.1992 at about 5.25 p.m. The prosecution case is that one Nilim had informed P.W.1 Naresh on 7.10.1992 that Ibrahim (accused no.1) had teased her in front of Masjid. The said Nilim is maternal cousin of P.W.1 Naresh. It is the prosecution case that Naresh (P.W.1) asked accused nos.1 & 2 as to why they were harassing his sister Nilim. It is further the prosecution case that on the same day i.e. on 7.10.1992 at 5.00 p.m., when Naresh (P.W.1) was going on a bicycle, one auto-rickshaw came near him. Three persons were sitting in the said autorickshaw. Accused no.1 Ibrahim kicked him from the rickshaw and he fell down. It is the prosecution case that accused no.3 Arif raised an alarm “Maro Maro”. It is the prosecution case that thereafter accused no.1 Ibrahim assaulted P.W.1 by giving blows of knife and P.W.1 thereafter was taken to the hospital. 3. Though initially the three accused were charged for the offence punishable under section 307, the accused no.3 Arif came to be acquitted and the present appellants came to be convicted and sentenced as 3 aforesaid. 4. Mr.Korpe, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused no.2, submits that except the evidence of P.W.1, there is nothing on record to establish the complicity of the accused in question. He submits that even reading the evidence of P.W.1 at its face value, nothing has come out in his evidence as against the accused no.2 Shabbir. He submits that the allegations are only against the accused no.1 Ibrahim. 5. I find that in view of the efflux of time, it will not be necessary to go into the merits of the matter. The appellants were convicted and sentenced by judgement and order dated 26.6.2002 and are in custody since then. I find that the sentence of ten years for an offence punishable under section 307 was not warranted in the facts of the case. In any case, the appellants have undergone sentence for almost a period of more than eight years. I, therefore, find that it will be in the interest of justice that the order of sentence as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is reduced to the period which has already undergone. 6. The appeals are, therefore, partly allowed. While maintaining the order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the order of sentence is modified and the sentence is reduced to the period which 4 has already undergone by the appellants. The appellants (original accused nos.1 & 2) Ibrahim Alibhai Chouhan and Shabbir @ Kalya Dhus Gafoor Shaikh are, therefore, directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case. B. R. GAVAI, J.