GIRIDHAR MALAVAYA, J. This revision has been filed by Deo Nandan, Rajendra, Raj Kishore and Narbansh against their conviction and sentence for offences under Section 324, Indian Penal Code in Case No. 1080 of 1990 decided by Judicial Magistrate 1st. Gorakhpur by his judgment and order dated 29-7-1992 passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. The re vision had been admitted on the question of sentence only. 2. I have heard Sri G. D. Mookherjee learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M. C. Joshi learned counsel appearing for the State. 3. As per prosecution allegation there was an altercation on the 8th August, 1982 at 6 p m. when Rajendra armed with a fersa and other accused armed with lathis caused injuries to Mitthu complainant as also his parents Sarju and Janakraji. The injuries of these victims were examined on 9-8-1992 between 1-30 a. m. and 12-10 p. m. by the doctor at Primary Health Centre Chughuli, Gorakhpur, Sarju had received 7 injuries out of which one was an incised wound. He also complained of pain. Mitthu had 10 injuries and Smt. Janakraji had 4 injuries. She also complained of pain. 4. On the basis of the prosecution evidence the trial court the charge proved against the accused applicants with the result that they were convicted and awarded rigorous imprisonment under Sections 323/34, Indian Penal Code for one year. Rajendra applicant was awarded two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. All the accused were acquitted under Sections 325/34, 326, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code. 5. In the appeal learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge examined all the aspects in appeal once again and finding no merit in the appeal the same was dismissed against which the present revision has been filed. 6. All that has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants is that the incident in question had taken place about 10 years back and the appli cants have been in jail for about four months. Consequently he has prayed that apart from the sentence which they have already uadergone the applicants may be shown leniency and their imprisonment may now be converted to some sentence of fine. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to this aspect of the matter. I find that except one injury which could be caused by Fersa, the Fersa was not repeatedly used. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to this aspect of the matter. I find that except one injury which could be caused by Fersa, the Fersa was not repeatedly used. Consequently the ends of justice would be met if while maintaining the conviction of the applicants their sentence is now reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them coupled with the fine. Since- Fersa was used by Rajendra applicant, hence he shall be released on his depositing a fine of Rs. 2000. The other applicants shall be released on their depositing a fine of Rs. 1000 out of the fine deposited by them half the amount shall be paid over to the victims Mitthu, Sarju and Janakraji. 8. This revision is accordingly partly allowed. While the conviction of the applicants is maintained their sentence is reduced to the period of imprison ment already undergone along with the fine of Rs. 2000 to Rajendra and Rs. 1000 each to the applicants Deo Nandan, Raj Kishore and Harbansh. If the fine is not deposited by the applicants they shall undergo the original sentence which had been awarded to them by the courts below. In the event of the fine being deposited by them half the amount shall be paid over to the complainant Mitthu, his father Sarju and mother Janakraji. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the applicants on payment of usual charges within a week. Revision allowed. .