JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Bharatpur dated 5th September, 1972, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Bayana against the accused petitioners vide his judgment dated 30-1-1971 in criminal case No. 111/1969. 2. Tersely speaking shorn of all unnecessary details, the prosecution case, as disclosed at the trial, is that accused Kalua, Bhagwandas, Pooran, Dhania and Gendi armed themselves with lathis formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to cause injury to PW 3 Mst. Resham. In prosecution of its common object, on 16-6-1969 at 11 PM all of them came together and asked PW 3 Mst. Resham to desist from putting the clay infront of her house. Mst. Resham PW 3 refused to oblige them. They got infuriated and pushed her aside. She ran for rescue inside her kitchen. All of the five accused followed her up the heels. Accused Bhagwandas and Dhania caught hold of her. Accused Gendi inflicted a blow on her right hand. Pooran inflicted blow on her head and Kalua gave push blow on her teeth. As a result of which her teeth fell out of her jaw. First Information Report of this occurrence was lodged at Police Station, Bayana by PW 2 Dhaniram on 16-6-1969 at 3.15 p.m. PW 3 Mst. Resham was clinically examined by PW 5 Dr. Bal Krishna Jemini on the same day at 1.30 p.m. The injury report is Ex. P. 2. Dr. Bal Krishna Jemini noted three injuries on her person. 3. The police after investigation submitted challan against the 5 accused including the two petitioners under sections 147, 452 and 323 IPC in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate Bayana. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and prosecution examined six witnesses in support of their case out of whom PW 1 Ramjilal, PW 4 Dojiram are the eye witnesses of this occurrence, PW 3 Mst. Resham is the injured person, PW 6 Shyam Sunder is Investigating Officer of the case and PW 5 Bal Krishna Jemini is the doctor who clinically examined PW 3 Mst. Resham for her injuries. The accused persons in their statement recorded under section 342 Cr, P.C. denied their complicity in the crime and examined in their defence two witnesses : (1) DW 1 Sitaram and (2) DW 2 Jhama. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate found the defence witnesses unreliable. Resham for her injuries. The accused persons in their statement recorded under section 342 Cr, P.C. denied their complicity in the crime and examined in their defence two witnesses : (1) DW 1 Sitaram and (2) DW 2 Jhama. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate found the defence witnesses unreliable. He placed reliance on the statements of PW 3 Mst. Resham, PW 1 Ramjilal, PW 4 Dojiram, PW 5 Dr. Bal Krishna Jemini and DW 1 Sitaram and convicted the accused of the charges framed against them and sentenced them as under:- (1) Accused Kalua, Bhagwandas, Pooran, Dhania and Gendi were convicted under sections 147, 452, and 323 IPC and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on, the first count ; rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- under the second count ; and a fine of Rs. 200/- under the third count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 4. All the five convicted persons took up an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the evidence held all the five accused applicants before him guilty of the offences punishable under sections 147, 452 and 323 3PC., He, however, extended the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 to Bhagwandas, Pooran and Dhaniya. The appeal filed by the accused Kalua and Gendi was rejected. 5. The three accused Bhagwandas, Pooran and Dhania felt satisfied with the judgment of learned Sessions Judge and the two petitioners Kalua and Gendi have challenged their conviction and sentences by this revision petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioners has read over to me the relevant portion of the statement of witnesses. PW 3 Mst. Resham stated that the five accused persons including the two petitioners after being armed with lathis came to her house. At that time she was putting clay outside her house. They asked her to desist from putting the clay but she refused to .oblige them. One of them pushed her and she ran for rescue inside her house. All of the five accused followed her up the heels. Accused Gendi inflicted a blow on her right hand with a danda and Kalua inflicted push blows on her month. They asked her to desist from putting the clay but she refused to .oblige them. One of them pushed her and she ran for rescue inside her house. All of the five accused followed her up the heels. Accused Gendi inflicted a blow on her right hand with a danda and Kalua inflicted push blows on her month. Accused Pooran gave a blow on her head and rest of the accused caught hold of her. More or less the same is the statement of PW 1 Ramjilal, PW 4 Dojiram. Inspite of long and searching cross-examination nothing has been brought in the statements on the basis which the veracity of their statement can be challenged. The two courts below have placed reliance on the statement of eye witnesses and I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent view of the two courts below. The conviction of accused petitioners Kalua and Gendi under sections 147, 323 and 452 IPC is maintained. 6. Now remains the question of sentence. Facing of criminal proceedings for the period of more than 7 years in itself is sufficient to inhibit the petitioners from repeating such an offence. It has also come in evidence that the cross cases were instituted between the parties regarding the same occurrence. Sending of the accused petitioners to jail after the expiry of 4 years of theirs release on bail by this court and 7 years of the occurrence specially when they have already remained in jail for a considerable period after conviction and the three other co-accused have been released on executing bonds under Probation of Offenders Act, would not be in the interest of justice. It is not going to have reformative effect upon them. There is grave risk of their being exposed to the close association and evil influence of hardened and habitual criminals who may happen to be the inmates of jail. Their stay in jail in such circumstances may lead to frustration might well attract them towards a life of crime instead of reforming them. This would clearly do them more harm than good and for that reason it would perhaps also be to an extent prejudicial to the larger interest of the society as a whole. The true purpose of penal treatment must be to take into consideration the three factors:- (1) The social defence of the society. This would clearly do them more harm than good and for that reason it would perhaps also be to an extent prejudicial to the larger interest of the society as a whole. The true purpose of penal treatment must be to take into consideration the three factors:- (1) The social defence of the society. (2) Redemption of the convict from the life of crime. (3) Satisfaction of the victim and the community with that justice has been done in the case. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances in which the offence has been committed, I think it would sub serve the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is reduced to period already undergone by them and in lieu of reduction of sentence of imprison the sentence of fine is enhanced, so that out of the fine the complainant PW 3 Mst. Resham can be suitably compensated. 8. I accordingly allow the revision petition in regard to the sentence imposed on the petitioners and reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them to that already undergone and enhance the sentence of fine from Rs. 500/- each to Rs. 750/- each and direct that out of fine realised the amount of Rs. 500/- be paid to PW 3 Mst. Resham. In default of payment of fine each of the petitioner will undergo four months rigorous imprisonment. Three months time is allowed to the accused petitioners to deposit the fine, in the trial Court as imposed by this Court. *******