- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. The revisionists were convicted in Criminal Case No. 307 of 1993 by IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur under Sections 325/34, 323/34 and 504, IPC, Each of them was sentenced to undergo R. I. of three months and pay fine of Rs. 200 for the offence under Section 325/34, IPC and to undergo one month R. I. each for the offence under Section 323/34 and to undergo 15 days R. I. for the offence under Sec tion 504, IPC. Against the aforesaid judgment they preferred Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1994, which was decided on 21-1-1995 by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur.
(2.) THEIR conviction for the offence under Section 504, IPC was set aside but their conviction and sentence recorded for the offences under Sections 325/34 and 323/34, IPC was upheld. Aggrieved by it they have come to this Court in revision. Both the courts below have discussed the oral evidence and have come to a definite finding about the guilt of the two revisionists. I have perus ed the judgments and have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the revisionists. I do not find any ground for disagreeing will the findings of fact arrived at by the two courts below. It was further urged that the revisionists have been in jail for more than a month, that the sentence awarded to them for the offence under Sec tion 323/34 IPC has already been undergone by them and if the remaining sentence under Section 325/34, IPC is converted into fine it would not be taken as enhancement of sentence.
(3.) IN view of the discussion made above the revision lacks merit. The sentence imposed upon the revisionists under Section 325/34, IPC is modified. The sentence already undergone and fine of Rs. 500 upon each of them would meet the ends of justice, IN case the fine is realised the injured Lallu Singh would get the compensation as awarded to him by the trial Court. With the above modification in the sentence the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;