JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 26-10-1978 by which the appellant was convicted under section 324 IPC and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 300/- & in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that complainant Manphool Ram is a resident of village Rohadawali. In the southern side of his house there is a Nohra of one Dhudaram. This was in possession of accused Laluram. He keeps his tractor and trolly in this Nohra. But this Nohra is adjacent to the house of Manphool Ram. Laluram has keep his Rudi adjoining wall to the house of Manphool Ram. On 28-6-1977 at about 6 P.M Manphool Ram objected to Laluram for keeping his Rudi adjacent to his house. That gave rise to heated arguments. It is alleged that Manphool Ram was standing in front of his house all the six accused persons including Laluram came there armed with various weapons. At that time some more persons including Panna Lal reached on the scene and. they intervened in the matter. During this scuffle an injury was caused to Manphool Ram on his left band and Rhagirath was also injured. 3. A first information report of this incident was lodged at police station Hindursai Kot by Manphool Ram and a case was registered against all the six accused persons under Sections 147, 323, 323/149, 324, and 324/ 149 IPC. After investigation the police filed a challan in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar against all the six accused parsons. The learned magistrate ultimately committed the case to the court of Sessions. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and got large number of documents exhibited. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated 26-10-1978 convicted the accused appellant Krishan Kumar as aforesaid and acquitted rest of the accused persons. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentence the accused appellant Krishan Kumar has preferred this appeal before this court. 6. I have heard Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.M. Bhandari, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the complainant. 7. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentence the accused appellant Krishan Kumar has preferred this appeal before this court. 6. I have heard Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.M. Bhandari, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the complainant. 7. Learned counsel has taken me to the testimony of the eye-witnesses and the testimony of the Doctor. After going through the statement of the witnesses and the various documents, it is apparent that the accused Krishan Kumar is the person who caused this injury on the hand of Manphool Ram. From the testimony of the Doctor it is also apparent that this injury has been caused by a sharp edged weapon. Thus, after perusing the record I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly approached the matter and cenviction of the accused appellant does not warrant any interference. 8. The only question remains is sentence. The accused has been sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-. The incident is of the year 1977 and it would not be proper to a send the accused now behind the bars after lapse of about 10 years. Therefore, instead of giving substantive sentence to the accused deem it proper to increase the amount of fine from 300/- to Rs. 1.000/-. The accused is convicted under Section 324 IPC and fined Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. The amount of fine should he deposited within one month from today. The amount of fine so realised shall be paid to Manphool Ram victim. 9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******