JUDGMENT 1. - Since Mr. Mathur, after arguing the case on merits for some time has ultimately prayed for reduction of the sentence, it is not necessary to either mention facts nor it is necessary to discuss the various facts of the case in detail. 2. Mst. Jethi is alleged to be the legally married wife of Jalurarn brother of Harjram. The death of Jalurarn resulted in customary 'nata' with Hariram, his brother. The dispute was that inspite of that Gangaram, took her away. First Hariram obtained a warrant under Section 100 Cr.PC and secured her release in 1976. It was then the turn of Gangaram who obtained warrant under Section 97 Cr.PC for search of house of number of persons including Hariram, Danaram and others. 3. On May 31, 3977 armed with this warrant, S.H.O. Shambu Singh of Sardarsahar accompanied by complainant Gangaram went to search these houses. On making search, Mst. Jethi could not be found. However, Gangaram was not allowed to go unscratched and he was attacked and beaten as soon as the police left him behind. When the Police party returned back, hearing his cries it is alleged that accused Hariram and Dana Ram disappeared from the scene. 4. Consequently, investigation, challan and trial followed. The appellants (Hariram and Danaram) have been convicted ultimately, Hariram under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months with fine of Rs. 100/-, Danaram under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 4 months' with fine of Rs. 100/-. 5. Though Mr. Mathur initially tried to point out that the version was full of inconsistency and discrepancy, he could not succeed in pointing out any substantial contradiction. On a consideration of the entire evidence afresh, I am convinced that the conviction is well sustained and just and based on proper appreciation of evidence. However, Mr. Mathur is justified in his prayer for not sending the accused to jail again. The above offence which was committed on May 31, 1977 and now about one decade has passed in between and the offence is also of such a nature where normally the accused could have claimed even probation. 6. Mr. Bhati, learned Counsel for the State, opposed the appeal with all vehemence on merits. The above offence which was committed on May 31, 1977 and now about one decade has passed in between and the offence is also of such a nature where normally the accused could have claimed even probation. 6. Mr. Bhati, learned Counsel for the State, opposed the appeal with all vehemence on merits. But so far as question of sentence is concerned he left it to the Court to decide it in its own discretion in view of the facts and circumstances pointed out by Mr. Mathur. 7. I have given a thoughtful consideration to this aspect of the case also. In my opinion, both the accused have remained in jail for some time and there having been an interval of about one decade, it would not be in the interest of justice to send them to jail again after such along interval looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it would be just and proper to increase the fine to compensate the injured-complainant. 8. Consequently, although the appeal is dismissed but with this modification that whereas the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court is maintained and confirmed, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone for each one of them. Hariram who has been convicted under Section 324 Indian Penal Code would pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- instead of Rs. 100/-and this amount would be paid as compensation to Gangaram. The fine of Danaram who has been convicted under Section 323 Indian Penal Code is increased to Rs. 500/- instead of Rs. 100/- and this amount would also be paid as compensation to injured Gangaram. 9. Both the appellants shall deposit the fine within 6 months from the receipt of the record by the trial court failing which each one of them would undergo sentence of three months in default. The trial court would intimate the complainant Gangaram as soon as the fine is deposited and pay the same to him as compensation. 10. With the above modification the appeal is dismissed.Appeal partly allowed. *******