Short Note : 1. The applicants were convicted under sections 324 and 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo four months R. 1. Held : The first submission made before the Court was that the conviction passed by the trial Court and maintained by the appellate Court is against the record and the evidence. The Courts should have believed the evidence produced in defence. The sentence passed is also excessive and they should have been given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The ages as mentioned in the revision application was shown to be 21 and 22 and it was submitted that looking to the ages of the applicants, a lenient view should be taken. From the evidence of Dr. Saxena (PW4) it is clear that there were about ten injuries on the body of Karodilal and there are two fractures. The medical evidence is supported by the evidence of Karodilal himself The story put forward in defence of Dangal Singh that Karodilal fell on the wood and sustained injury cannot he accepted for a moment as the medical evidence does not support that story. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted for holding the applicants not guilty. The only things which appeals to this Court is that the applicants are of tender age and therefore, they need not be sent back to jail. They have already undergone a part of the sentence. Therefore, the only thing is to minimise the sentence against them. The sentence reduced to the extent already undergone.