- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18th March, 1983 whereby the appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellants passed on 15-6-1982 passed by the City Munsif Magistrate, Saharanpur was confirmed.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case the occurrence took place on 8-11-1981 at about 7. 30 p. m. in village Chilkana, Police station Chilkana, district Saharanpur when all the accused-revisionists went to the field of complainant and started beat ing Suresh who received as many as 14 injuries including injuries 2 and 3 wherein there was found fracture. The prosecution examined the in jured, the doctor and other witnesses to prove the prosecution version and the learned Magistrate convicted the accused persons under Section 325 read with Sec tion 34 and under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprison ment for one year and three months respectively under each count. The senten ces were ordered to run concurrently. The accused filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur on 18-3-1983. Heard learned Counsel for the par ties.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appel lants contended that the revision is pend ing for the last 17 years. He also contended that earlier HCR was registered which shows that there were no grievous injuries. It is also found out on perusal of the judg ment of the learned Magistrate that there was a fracture of ulna in the lower part and also there was fracture in the 1st and 2nd phylinx of left hand. Although there is fracture but not on the vital part of the body. Further the other injuries were also not on the vital part and considering the pendency of the revision for the last 17years, I agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists that they may not be sentenced to undergo rigorous im prisonment and further they remained in jail for more than a week. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that the sentence is modified to the fine which shall meet the ends of justice. The revision is dismissed on merit. However the sentence is modified. The revisionists are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each for the offence under Sec tion 323 read with Section 34, IPC and Rs. 2,000 each for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC. The revisionists shall deposit the fine in the trial Court within three months and in default of payment of fine each revisionist will have to undergo rigorous imprison ment as awarded by the trial Court (Sic ). Revision dismissed. .;