JUDGMENT V.N. Mehrotra, J. - This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 9.11.1988 by Sri S. P. Srivastava, Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, dismissing the appeal filed by the present revisionist against the judgment dated 11.8. 1988 by Sri Ajai Kumar Sinha, Munsif Magistrate (First) Tihri, convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 147, 422 and 225 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R. I. for a period of nine months, six months and one year respectively. The accused were also directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine they were to undergo R. 1. for a further period of six months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Smt. Pyara Devi, lodged a first information report against the accused persons asserting that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 14.7.1982 itself, three of the accused persons had quarreled with her husband. When her husband came back to his house, all the accused persons entered it and beat him and threw him down. The complainant was also beaten by the accused persons. As a result of the act of the accused persons, a number of injuries were caused to both these persons. Wrist bone of the complainant husband was also fractured. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. The learned Magistrate believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused persons. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. 3. At the time of hearing of this revision, the learned counsel for the revisionist did not press the revision on merits but he has pressed the same as regards the quantum of sentence only. According to him the accused persons as well as the complainant were close relations as well as neighbours and the accused persons have already been in jail for more than a month. It has further been argued that the occurrence took place about 8l years earlier and since then the parties are living in peace and that actually the matter was compromised between the parties but unluckily a proper compromise could not be filed and verified though an application was actually moved before this court earlier. The learned counsel did not assail the finding by the trial court or by the appellate court on the question of conviction. 4. The learned counsel did not assail the finding by the trial court or by the appellate court on the question of conviction. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A. G. A. and has perused the record of the case. The occurrence had taken place about 821 years earlier. It appears from the record that the parties are close relations and also appear to be neighbours being residents of the same village. it also appears that the accused persons have been in jail for more than a month. The record also indicates that an application along with a compromise was filed in this court in which it was alleged that the parties have come to terms and now there was no dispute between them. However, the compromise was not in proper form and could not be verified, hence it was not acted upon. 5. I have considered the nature of the injuries caused to the victims and also the above mentioned facts, and I am of the view that it will now not be proper to send back the accused persons, who include one lady also, to jail. The ends of justice will be met, if the sentence of the applicants is reduced to that which they have already undergone. The sentence of fine should, however, be maintained. Out of the fine realised, an amount of Rs. 1,000/- should be paid to injured Ram Singh, who had received grievous injury. 6. In the result, the Revision is allowed to the extent that while maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 322 and 325 I.P.C, the sentence is reduced to that already undergone. The sentence of fine of Rs. 800/- each and in default to undergo R. I. for a period of six months is maintained. Out of the fine, which may be realised from the applicants (accused persons), an amount of Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid as compensation to injured Rain Singh. The revisionists are allowed six months time to pay the fine.