JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated March 9, 1976 convicted the appellants Shivram and Nanga under Sections 325/34 and 323, IPC. He awarded two years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Sections 325/34, IPC. and six months rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under section 323, IPC. In default of the payment of the fine of Rs. 200, the learned Sessions Judge directed that each of the accused should be sentenced to two months, rigorous imprisonment and in default of payment of the fine of Rs. 100/- each of them should be sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment. He also ordered that both the sentences should run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, Shivram and Nanga have filed this appeal. 2. It is not necessary to state the facts in details for the reason that Mr. R.P. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued on the question of sentence only. It may be stated that the incident had taken place on the night intervening between October 5 and 6, 1975. At the time of recording the evidence i.e. on March 4, 1976, the appellants Shivram and Nahga were 32 and 17 years old respectively. They were convicted, as stated above, on March 9, 1976. Against the conviction and sentence, both the appellant lodged the appeal on April 6. 1976. It appears from the order-sheet dated April 7, 1976 of Bail Application No. 280 of 1976 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1976 that the sentence awarded to appellant No. 1 Nanga. was suspended by the learned Sessions Judge himself and appellant No. 1 Shivram. who was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, had already undergone five months. The application for suspension of sentence of both the accused-appellants was allowed and the sentences awarded to them were suspended. In pursuance of that, they were released on bail, Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants, stated that the appellant Shivram had already s offered imprisonment of five months 29 days and that the appellant Nanga had also suffered imprisonment for 2 months 9 days. This is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. In these circumstances, I do not think it proper to send both the appellants to Jail again. 3. This is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. In these circumstances, I do not think it proper to send both the appellants to Jail again. 3. As the learned counsel for the appellants has argued on the question of sentence only, I affirm the conviction of the appellants, but reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by each of the appellants. 4. The appeal is allowed only to the extent indicated above but dismissed in all other respects. The appellants need not surrender to their bail bonds and their bail bonds are discharged.Appeal partly allowed. *******