V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two criminal revisions arise out of the same judgment passed by Mr. M. C. Godboles, the then Sessions Judge, Kanpur on 22/10/1983,the learned judge was hearing an appeal (being criminal appeal No. 36 of 1983 against the judgment and order passed by Mr. J. S. Parihor. Metropolitan Magistrate, Gwali Tola (Kanpur) through which the learned Magistrate bas convicted all the four revisionists under-Sections 452, 325 and 323 I. P. C. and sentenced each one of them to one years rigorous imprisonment under Sec, 452 I. P. C. , to one years rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 325 and to three moths rigorous imprisonment under S. 323, I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the appeal recorded acquittal of the revisionists under Section 325, I. P. C. but confirmed tile conviction under Sections 452 and 323, I. P. C. reducing the sentence on first count to three months and on the second count to one months rigorous imprisonment and making the two sentences concurrent. ( 2 ) BRIEFIY stated, the prosecution story was that on 21/10/1979 at about 2. 30 p. m. when Babu Ram, son of Jagannath was sitting at the door of the informant Heera Lai the revisionists, nameiy Ram Autar, Indra Kumar, Prakash aiias Om prakash and Ram Ghuiam, who beiong to the same iocaiity, came there and picked up a quarrei with him. They started abusing him. Ram Ghuiam was armed with an Iron rod. The remaining three had iathies and Dandas. As a resuit of this exchange of abuses, they started beiabouring Babu Ram with their weapons. Heera Lai and his nephew came to save Babu Ram and they were promptiy given a chase by the revisionists. They ran towards their houses and they were chased and uitimateiy the revisionists entered the house and gave beating to Heera Lal, his wife Smt. Basanti and Sukkha with their weapons. The occurrence was witnessed by Phooi chand and Thakurr Prasad and after committing the offence the revisionists went away from the spot and then an F. I. R, was written out and iodged at the poiice Station by Heera Lai at 4 p. m. The injuries of Heera Lai, Sukkha, Babu Ram and Smt. Basanti were examined. Each one of them had at ieast one iacerated wound besides other in. juries. Each one of them had at ieast one iacerated wound besides other in. juries. Heera Lai, Sukkha and Babu Ram entered the witness box to prove their case. The Doctor, who examined the injuries, was examined as P. W. 4 and the Investigation Officer as P. W. 5. The iearned Magistrate as weii as the iearned Sessions Judge beiieved the prosecution story and passed the impugned orders. ( 3 ) THE first argument advanced is that the two witnesses Phooi Chand and Thakur Prasad who were named in the F. I. R. as independent witnesses haw not been examined. It is true but it wiii have absoiuteiy no effect upon the case itseif because the iaw does not want over burdening of the record by producing evidence. If the witnesses who have aiready been examined can be beiieved, the case cannot be thrown out on the ground that some other witnesses who, were on the spot and witnessed the incident were hot examined. Injuries were sustained by four persons inciuding a iady and an expianation has come for the same from three persons. The defence suggestion is absoiuteiy meaningiess and bogus and I am in agreement with the courts beiow that as a matter of fact it is estabiished beyond doubt that these persons, nameiy Heera Lai, Sukkha, Babu Ram and Smt. Basanti were injured as a resuit of the beating given by the present revisionists out of whom Ram Ghuian was armed with an Iron rod and the remaining three had iathies and Dandas. It is aiso to be heid that three of these persons were injured inside their house. Hence the charges under Sections 323 and 452, I. P. C. were cieariy made out against the accused-revisionists and their convictions were rightiy returned. ( 4 ) THE matter of sentence, however, requires some consideration. The occurrence took piace as far back as October, 1979 and this revision is being disposed of in February, 1988. The sentences awarded are oniy of three months rigorous imprisonment and one months rigorous imprisonment on two separate counts but they have been made concurrent. It wiii reaiiy be very harsh if the accused-revisionists are now made to go back to jaii to serve out their sentences after such a iong iapse of time. The sentences awarded are oniy of three months rigorous imprisonment and one months rigorous imprisonment on two separate counts but they have been made concurrent. It wiii reaiiy be very harsh if the accused-revisionists are now made to go back to jaii to serve out their sentences after such a iong iapse of time. The iearned counsei for the revisionists, who argued these revisions, states that if the accused persons are visited with a fine instead of being sent to jaii it wiii not be treated as enhancement of sentence. The Magistrate passed the order of conviction and sentence on 9/8/1983 and after fiiing of the appeai on 26/8/1983 baii was granted to the four revisionists. Thus from 9. 8. 83 to 26. 8. 83 they remained in Jaii custody. Simiiariy, the Sessions Judges order is dated 22/10/1983. Ram Ghuiam, Ram Autar and Indra Kumar were granted baii by this court on 27/10/1983 whereas Praksh aiias Omprakash was granted baii on 26. 10. 83. In this manner after the judgment of the Sessions Judge they have remained in jail for 4-5 days. Under these circumstances, while I uphold the convictions of the accused-revisionists under Sections 452 and 323, I. P. C. alter their sentences. Under Section 452, I. P. C. their sentence shall be the imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 200. 00 each and under Sec. 323, I. P. C. the sentence shall be a fine of Rs. 100/- each. In event of default of payment of fine on any of these, the defaulter shall, however, undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Sec, 452 I. P. C. and for one month under Sec. 323 I. P. C. Out of the amount of fine deposited, a sum of Rs. 200. 00 shall be paid to each of the injured, namely Babu Ram, Sukkha, Heera Lal and Smt. Basanti. The amount of fine shall be deposited within a period of two months form today. With the observations above both the revisions stand disposed of. Order accordingly. .