Kanpur, Nov. 28 -- A 27-year-old assault case culminated in a brief punishment for a middle-aged Kanpur couple who were sentenced by the court of the additional chief judicial magistrate (ACJM) II to stand in the dock "till the rising of the court" and pay a Rs 3,500 fine. The court noted that failure to pay the fine would result in seven days' imprisonment. With the penalty paid, the couple were formally discharged. The complainant's counsel Anant Sharma said the couple were 22 and 26 years old at the time of the incident. The case had been lodged under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 504 (intentional insult with the intent to provoke the breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, offences that fall under the jurisdiction of the lower court. The case dates back to March 1998, when Santosh Kumar lodged an FIR at the Kalyanpur police station alleging that his uncle, Kanhai Lal, and aunt, Urmila Devi, attacked him with an iron rod while he sat outside his home on March 2, causing serious injuries. Police later filed a chargesheet. The matter then went through hearings for nearly three decades without resolution. On Wednesday, the accused confessed to the crime. Thereafter, the ACJM II court pronounced the sentence. The complainant's counsel Anant Sharma said a revision petition will be filed shortly against the order, arguing that the sentencing was inconsistent with the statute. "Section 324, which involves grievous injury, carries punishment of up to three years. This sentencing does not reflect the seriousness of the conviction and is against the laid-down rules," Sharma said. Both the accused are neighbours of the complainant, who works as a court clerk. Despite the minor nature of the dispute, the complainant continued to pursue the case relentlessly for nearly three decades. At one stage, the file allegedly went missing after the matter was transferred to another court, but the complainant refused to withdraw and kept pressing for trial. The matter would likely have remained in cold storage had the complainant not learnt, after the Covid period, that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against the accused couple. That development revived the proceedings and ensured that the trial moved towards conclusion, ultimately leading to the conviction and sentencing....