D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J. Second Additional Munsif Magistrate, Haldwani by its order dated 3-4-1981 passed in Criminal Case No. 188 of 1980 convicted accused Raj Kumar and Bishan Swaroop under Sections 323, 452 and 326/34, I. P. C. and after hearing them on the question of sentence convicted accused Raj Kumar under Section 326, I. P. C. for three years R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo one years R. I. Under Section 452, I. P. C. accused Raj Kumar was sentenced to six months imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default, he was required to undergo one months imprisonment. No sentence was recorded under Section 232, I. P. C. as it was not considered necessary Accused Bishan Swaroop was sentence under Section 326, I. P. C. for three years R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, he was required to undergo two months imprison ment. Further under Section 452, I. P. C. he was sentenced to two months R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default, he was required to undergo one month imprisonment. No sentence was impose under Section 323, I. P. C. Against this conviction and sentences both the accused preferred criminal appeal. Criminal Appeal preferred by Raj Kumar was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1981 and appeal preferred by Bishan Swar-poop was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1981. Both these appeals were decided by First Additional. Sessions Judge, Nainital by a common judgment dated 13th October, 1981. He dismissed both the appeals maintaining the conviction and sentences of the appellants. 2. The present revision is the out come of the aforesaid conviction and sentence which is filed only by one accused Raj Kumar. 3. The list was revised and after perusing the record the judgment was dictated, but before the same could be ready and signed, an application was moved by Sri A. N. Mulla, Advocate, for giving him an opportunity of being heard. The prayer was accepted Sri Mulla was heard on the question of sentence and also on the question of acc6rding benefit under U. P. Children Act, 1951. The application is on the record. The prayer was accepted Sri Mulla was heard on the question of sentence and also on the question of acc6rding benefit under U. P. Children Act, 1951. The application is on the record. Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor and I have gave through the record of the case. 4. The prosecution case was that on 13-3-1980 at about 9 p. m. Shyam Lal, the complainant (P. W. I) and his wife Shashi Bala (P. W. 2) were sitting inside their house in town Khatina, District Nainital having doors opened. Accused, Raj Kumar, along with Bishan Swaroop entered their house and stated hurling abuses on them and they caught-hold of Shyam Lal, the complainant, and dragged him outside the house be labouring with fists and kicks and not only this, his wife Smt. Shashi Bala was also be laboured. Accused Raj Kumar picked up a tin from the corner of the street which contained corrosive substance (acid) and the same was poured on the complainant, Shyam Lal, and also on his wife who was caught hold of by Bishan Swaroop and thereafter the accused ran away. The occurrence was witnessed by Druga Prasad and Shanker. The complainant and his wife were medically examined by Dr. L. D. Khatri (P. W. 5) who found the follow ing injuries on the person Smt. Shashi Bala. "there were third degree of burns in the front of the abdomen, front of left leg, both hands, both forearms and second degree burns on the face and surface in between the fingers of both hands, yellowish brown staining present at various parts of the body around and about the burns. The brown area were not surrounded by any red lines of demaraction. Burns were almost uniform in character. Stains were not scorched. There was vesicle formation. Extent of the burns was about 20%. The injuries were fresh and were caused by some coercive substance. " 5. Shyam Lal, complainant, was also examined by him and the following injuries were found on his body: "there were third degree burns on the right side of neck, right upper on and forearms, left upper arm and half of fore arms, right side of chest, right chest, upper back right side, right thigh and leg and second degree burns on the left leg and front of face. Right eye swollen and closed and called not opened. Right eye swollen and closed and called not opened. Yellowish brown staining was present, at various parts of body around and about the burns. The burn left area were not surrounded by any red line of demarcation. Burns were almost uniform in character. They were not scratched. There was vesicle formation present. Extent of the burns was about 30%. The injuries were fresh and were caused by some corrosive substance. " 6. The report was lodged at Police Station Khatisa, on 13-3-1980 at about 22-35 hours. 7. After investigation, the applicant and co-accused Bishan Swaroop were charge sheeted. Before the lower Appellate Court from the side of accused, as many as four arguments were advanced. The first argument was that there was no motive on the part of the two accused persons having commission of the crime and for this reason the prosecution case must be thrown away. The second argument was that the complainant Shyam Lal did not disclose in the First Information Report that out of the two accused, it was Raj Kumar, who had actually thrown the acid on him and at his wife. The third argument was that the source of light at the spot for the recognition of the accused was doubtful, and the fourth argument was that the case did not fall under Section 326, I. P. C. The lower appellate Court dealt with all the arguments and rejected the same. It was held that motive is wholly insignificant in the present case because of the presence of direct and credible evidence against them regarding the commission of the crimes. On the other points the Court held that the testimony of the complainant has been corroborated by P. W. 2 Shashi Bala and another, independent witness Durga Prasad (P. W. 3), whose name also find place in the F. I. R. P. W. Shashi Bala stated that some acids was splitted over the accused Bishan Swaroop also who was catching hold of her husband at that moment by his neck. 8. Regarding light, the Court held that there is not the least doubt that both the accused were very well seen and recognised by the three witnesses, namely, Shyam Lal (P. W. I) Shashi Bala (P. W. 2) and Durga Prasad (P. W. 3 ). 9. 8. Regarding light, the Court held that there is not the least doubt that both the accused were very well seen and recognised by the three witnesses, namely, Shyam Lal (P. W. I) Shashi Bala (P. W. 2) and Durga Prasad (P. W. 3 ). 9. The four argument was also rejected holding that the manner in which the occur rence took place undoubtedly proves that there has been a meeting of their head earlier. The acids was actullay thrown by accused Raj Kumar and he was rightly punished under Section 323, I. P. C. 10. These are the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. There is no question of reappreciation of the findings, which are findings of fact, by this Court. 11. In the memo of revision one of the ground taken is that the trail Court illegally awarded the sentence of imprisonment on the applicant, who was below 16 years of age on the date of incident and was a child within the definition of children Act. 12. I have perused the record and found that there is statement of the accused Raj Kumar, who is the only applicant before me, given under Section 313, Cr. P. C. which is dated 30-3-1981. In the statement accused Raj Kumar has disclosed his age to be 20 years. The occurrence is dated 13-8-1980. On the date of occurrence, according to the own statement of the applicant, he was of the 19 years, 3 months, and 17 days. 13. In the U. P. Children Act, 1951, the Child is defined means a person under the age of 16 years. The applicant, accordingly to his own case, was not under the age of 16 years on the date of commission of the offence, i. e. 13-8-1980 and therefore, the provisions of U. P. Children Act, 1951 would not be attracted. The applicant is not entitled for any benefit under the Children Act. 14. Learned Counsel for the applicant has brought to my notice that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 18-1-1988, the compromise effected between the complainant and the accused was verified and the verification was testified by the Chief udicial Magistrate, Nainital under his order dated 18-8-1888. 14. Learned Counsel for the applicant has brought to my notice that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 18-1-1988, the compromise effected between the complainant and the accused was verified and the verification was testified by the Chief udicial Magistrate, Nainital under his order dated 18-8-1888. The offence under Sections 326 and 452, I. P. C. is non-compoundable but Sri A. N. Mulla has placed reliance on a case Ram Pujan and others v. State of U. P. , AIR 1973 SC 2418 . In that case also the offence was non-compoundable but the Court held that: "the major offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no doubt non-compoun dable but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. It would, in our opinion, meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone, provided each of the appellants pays a fine on Rs. 1,000/- in addition to the period of imprisonment already undergone for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34, I. P. C. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a total period of one year for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Out of the fine, if realised, Rs. 2,000/- should be paid to Ram Sweak and Rs. 2,000/- to Ram Samujh as compensation. " 15. On this basis, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the applicant has already suffered the sentence of imprisonment for about 2-1/2 months. Apart from it, he also submitted that, in the background as stated above, no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant to prison after lapse of such long period, which comes to near about 10 years. He further submitted that instead, if a fine is imposed in the shape of compensation than the same would not be taken as enhancement of sentence. 16. He further submitted that instead, if a fine is imposed in the shape of compensation than the same would not be taken as enhancement of sentence. 16. I find substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant and having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court, as referred to above, and also having in mind the factum of long pendency of litigation, I feel that the ends of justice would better be served if instead of sending the applicant to prison fine is imposed with the liability of paying compensation to the victims v Shyam Lal and Shashi Bala, his wife) which I assess at Rs. 10,000/- and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I feel that they should be paid at least Rs. 5,000/- each. I order accordingly. 17. The applicant undertakes to deposit it in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital within a period of 4 months from today and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- so deposited by the applicant shall be paid in equal quantum to each of the victims. The amount which has already been deposited by the applicant under the earlier order of this Court 22-12-1981 shall be adjusted in the aforesaid deposit. He is directed to appear before the C. J. M. , Naintial and to execute a bond of good behaviour and for maintaining peace and decent relationship with the victims within the period of four months from today. In the case of default in payment of fine and complying the other conditions, the applicant shall be taken into custody forthwith after the expiiy of the aforesaid period of 4 months and shall serve out the sentence imposed on him by the Court below. 18. With the aforesaid direction, this revision is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged. 19. A copy of the judgment will be made available to the Counsel for the applicant within 2 weeks from today. 20. The office is directed lo transmit the lower Court record immediately. Revision dismissed. .