JUDGMENT S. I. Jafri, J. - Ram Autar and Ram Lotan applicants have filed this revision against their conviction under Sections 323/34, I.P.C. and sentences of 4 months R. I. and fine Rs. 200 each recorded by District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Ram Autar and others v. State of U. P., Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1985 by an order dated 1741987. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 1011983 at about 9.10 p. m. on account of a dispute between the daughter of the complainant and the son of the accused on the question of cooking food, Smt. Amalhin was assaulted by the applicants by means of a danda and caused injuries on her person. After the occurrence, a report was lodged at Police Station on 1011983. She was also medically examined by Dr. R. P. Tiwari, P. W. 3. who had found six simple injuries on her person. Subsquently, usual investigation followed and when no action was initiated by the Police, a complaint was filed by Smt. Amalhin whereupon accused persons were summoned. During the course of trial, Smt. Amalhin complainant and Bindeshwari P.W. 2, R. P. Tiwari, P.W. 3 and Atnarnath Pandey, P. W. 4 Constable were examined in support of its case by the prosecution. 3. The conviction of the applicants rest on the testimony of Smt. Amalhin complainant and Bindesbwari, P. W. 2. The oral testimony of Smt. Amalhin is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. R. P. Tiwari who had proved the injuries on her person on medical examination. Her statement is further corroborated by the statement of Bindeshwari, P. W. 2. Nothing material has been fished out by the learned counsel for the applicants in the statements of Smt. Amalhin and Bindeshwari, P. W. 2 in order to discredit their testimony, The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the applicants as stated above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 1011983 and since about five years have rolled by. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 1011983 and since about five years have rolled by. It is further submitted that the complainant and the accused are neighbours and they are on cordial and speaking terms It is further submitted that the appellants have already been in jail for a period of about two weeks after their conviction by the learned Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge and that no useful purpose shall be served by sending the applicants again back to jail in order to undergo the remaining sentence. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and I am of the view that during the period of these five years, together with the physical wounds, the teething pain and anguish of the heart of Smt. Amalhin must also have been healed up and I feel that it would meet the ends of justice, if the complainant Smt. Amalhin is compensated in terms of money. Under the circumstances I deem it proper to impose a fine of Rs. 2,000 each on the applicants instead of sending them to Jail. 6. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under Sections 323/34, I.P.C. is affirmed but the sentence of imprisonment for four months each as recorded by the appellate court is set aside and instead the applicants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 each and the sentence of the imprisonment already undergone by them. The applicants are allowed two months' time to deposit the amount of fine in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh from today and in default of payment of fine, the applicants shall undergo four months' R. I. each. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to make over the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,000 to Smt. Amalhin out of the amount so realised and the remaining amount of fine of Rs. 1.000 shall go to the State Exchequer. 7. Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to learned counsel for the applicants on payment of usual charges within a week from today. 8. 1,000 to Smt. Amalhin out of the amount so realised and the remaining amount of fine of Rs. 1.000 shall go to the State Exchequer. 7. Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to learned counsel for the applicants on payment of usual charges within a week from today. 8. Office is also directed to send a copy of this order direct to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh for compliance. Revision partly allowed.