- (1.) PARMESHWAR Dayal, J. This revision arises out of the order of conviction and sentence, passed by the two lower Courts against the revisionist, finally convicting and sentencing him under Section 324,i. P. C. to (2) years' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, has been that on 6-12-1981 at about 7 a. m. , the revisionist and two others assaulted the informant, Raj Kumar Shukla by means of Farsha, Ballam and Lathi. On an intervention by others, they left the injured and went away. He lodged F. I. R. on the same day at 11. 30 a. m. on which basis a case was registered and investigation followed. THE injury report indicated that he received injuries which could possibly be caused by means of Farsha, Ballam and Lathis. He was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 324,i. P. C. THE trial Court convicted and sentenced him under all the aforesaid Sections. THE appellate Court set aside his conviction and sentence under Sections 323/34 and 325/34,i. P. C. and upheld his conviction under Section 324,i. P. C. THE co-accused of the revisionist, namely, Udhava, was released on probation. THE third accused was not prosecuted. The F. I. R. was lodged by the injured Raj Kumar Shukla who entered the witness box and proved the prosecution case. His statement was corrobo rated by another witness, namely, Dhani Rani. Also, the prosecution case found support from the medical evidence and was corroborated by the FI. R. As such the revisionist was rightly convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324, I. P. C. as he was proved to have used a Farsha. However, it has been con tended on his behalf by his learned counsel that he has been in jail for about a month and that it would be very hard for him if he is again sent to jail as he has to look after his cultivation and his dependants. He is a young man of about 23 years of age and, as contended by his learned counsel, the sentence of fine would also meet the ends of justice in this case since the injured can be well compensated if he pays the amount of fine. I agree with him. Also, the learned counsel for State that if the sentence of imprisonment is modified into the sentence of fine, it shall not be deemed as enhancement of punishment. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed to the extent that even though the conviction of the revisionist is upheld, the order of sentence passed by the two lower Courts is modified to the effect that he is sentenced to the period of imprisonment, already undergone by him, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. He is given one month's time to deposit the amount of fine, and on his failure to deposit the amount of fine, he shall undergo imprisonnent as directed, and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Revision partly allowed. .;