- (1.) GIRIDHAR Malaviya, J. This revision was admitted on the question of sentence alone.
(2.) AS per the prosecution case on 26-4-1989 complainant Amar Singh lodged a first information report that the applicants Suraj Pal and Jawahar Lal came to his house at 7-15 a. m. and asked for the keys of the diesel engine of the pumping set which had been installed by them jointly. Bhagwan Devi wife of the : complainant told them that she did not have the keys. Thereupon the accused applicants rebuked her and beat her with lathi and dandas causing injuries to his wife on medical examination and X-ray, fracture was found in the scalp of Bhagwan Devi. Thereafter the case was converted under Sections 323/325/34 1pc against the applicants. After investi gation the charge-sheet was submitted, applicants were tried and on the basis of the evidence of Bhagwan Devi and complainant Amar Singh, apart from other foment witnesses, the 2nd Addl. Munsif Magistrate Etah convicted and sentenced the applicants in Criminal Case No. 47 of 1990 under Section 323, IPC for six months each and under Section 325, 1pc, for two years each. The sentence were directed to run concurrently. However, the applicants were acquitted under Section 504, IPC. The applicants preferred an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah who, by his judgment and order dated 16-10-91 dismissed the appeal and main tained the conviction and sentence of the applicants against which the present revision has been filed. I heard learned counsel for the applicants as also learned State counsel. All that the learned counsel for the applicants has argued is that this was a family affair where on account of the key of the pumping set being not made available the applicants got enraged and beat the wife of the complainant. He accordingly prays that a lenient view should be taken in the matter so that the relations between the parties may have a chance to improve. Undoubtedly Bhagwan Devi had received injuries in which her skull had also been broken. This type of behaviour is deplorable and would nor mally call for a strict view so far as the question of sentence is concerned. However, there seems to be some force in the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the incident having taken place between close relations, the same may be deserving a special consideration on the quantum of punish ment particularly so far as the imprisonment aspect of the applicants to con cerned.
(3.) LOOKING at the facts and circumstances of this case and finding that the tampers between the applicants by now should have cooled down I deem it proper that apart from the sentences which the applicants might have undergone both as an under-trial prisoner and as a convict, the applicant may be asked to pay Rs. 7500 each as fine for the charge for which they have been convicted. Out of this amount half of the amount shall be paid to the victim Smt. Bhawan Devi. 6, Accordingly this revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the applicants their sentence it modified to the extent that apart from the sentence they have already undergone they shall be released from Jail on their depositing a fine of Rs. 2500 each in the trial court. Out of the sum of Rs. 5000 deposited by the applicants jointly a sum of Rs. 25,000 shall be paid over to Smt. Bhagwan Devi the victim of this incident. 7. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the applicants on payment of usual charges within a week. Revision partly allowed. .;