- (1.) HEARD Mr. P. N. Misra, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) MR. P. N. Misra, does not challenge the impugned judgment and order on the point of conviction of the revisionist out of whom one Lallu has died during the pen dency of the revision petition as per report Flag-A bearing letter No. 176/10-8-99 of R. R. Yadav, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur addressed to Deputy Registrar of this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition abates against Lallu. The remaining three revisionists have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34 and 325/34, I. P. C. and have been sentenced to terms of im prisonment and fine. However, MR. Misra challenges the quantum of sentence of R. I. awarded under each head which have been ordered to run concurrently. The submis sion of MR. Misra is that the incident is of 30-9-1980 which has taken 19 years up till now and in these circumstances the revisionists deserve mercy. Further his submission is that the revisionists have undergone one month and one week im prisonment after dismissal of appeal and before getting bail in this revision petition from this Court. Further his submission is that the sentence of imprisonment may be converted in a sentence of fine out of which a suitable sum may be awarded to the victim-complainant injured. The learned does not object to the prayer of MR. Misra. Old age of the revision petition itself speaks that the incident is very old. The injury discussed in the impugned judgment is of course on vital part of the body but the conviction of the revisionists is under Sec tions 324 and 325, I. P. C. which both are compoundable offence, Mr. Misra submits that the relationship between the parties have become cordial during the pendency of the revision petition to which the learned AG. A has no contest. The prayer of con verting the substantive sentence of two year and one year R. I. in a sentence of fine ap pears reasonable. Accordingly, the revision petition partly succeeds. The revision petition is dismissed confirming the conviction of the revisionists under Sections 324/34 and 325/34, I. P. C. However, the substantive sentences of two years and one year R. I. awarded to the revisionist under Section 324/34 and 325/34, I. P. C. respectively is modified and substituted by a sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. The revisionists are directed to deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court within three months from today. In default of payment of fine the revisionists will undergo R. I. for six months.
(3.) OUT of the total amount of fine deposited by the revisionists Rs. 10. 000/-will be paid to the injured Rampal. Revision partly allowed. .;