JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - Lakhan, Jagdish and Pramod have filed this revision against their conviction under Section 325 I.P.C. and the sentence of six months' R. I. passed by the Third Additional Munsif Magistrate, Etah, which has been upheld in appeal by the First Additional. Sessions Judge, Etah, hence this revision which was admitted on the question of sentence only on 7.10.1991. 2. Sri M. Islam and Sri P. N. Gangwar, learned counsel for the applicants have argued that the incident is of the year 1985 and nearly 7 years have elapsed and no useful purpose will be served if the applicants are asked to serve out the remaining period of sentence particularly because the applicants are prepared to pay fine in lieu thereof inasmuch as the applicants have undergone nearly two week's R. I. 3. From a perusal of the judgment it appears that the courts below have placed reliance on the testimony of P.W. 1 Balak Ram, P.W. 2 Surendra Saran, P.W. 4 Hari Babu who were examined as eye-witnesses, P.W. 3 Dr, J.N. Singh, the Medital Officer, P.W. 5 Dr. S.R. Gupta, Radiologist, P.W. 6 Head-moharrir Jagdish Saran, and Pritam Singh, the then Sub-Inspector Aliganj. There is no error in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below and that is why this revision was admitted on the question of sentence. 4. It was rightly emphasised by the learned counsel for the applicants, that the doctor had found only five injuries on Balak Ram, the victim and only injury No. 3 was found to be grievous indicating a fracture in the ulna bone. It was not known who caused that injury. Therefore, individual liability could not be fixed and all the applicants have been rightly held' to be jointly liable for the same. Nearly seven years having already elapsed, no useful purpose will be served if the applicants are sent back to jail. Instead, a fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the applicant in lieu of the remaining sentence would meet the ends of justice as the counsel said that it would not be treated as enhancement of sentence. From the said amount of Rs. 1,500/- a sum of Rs. 1,200/- should be awarded as compensation to the victim Balak Ram. 5. Instead, a fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the applicant in lieu of the remaining sentence would meet the ends of justice as the counsel said that it would not be treated as enhancement of sentence. From the said amount of Rs. 1,500/- a sum of Rs. 1,200/- should be awarded as compensation to the victim Balak Ram. 5. Consequently, this revision is dismissed with the direction that the conviction of the applicants Jagdish Lakhan and Pramod under Section 325 LP.G. is maintained but their sentences e reduced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 500/- each of the applicants which will be deposited in the court of the C.J.M. within a period of three months from today as prayed. From out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 1,200/- will be paid as compensation to Balak Ram who may be summoned by the C.J.M. and paid the said amount under his personal supervision. The C.J.M. will submit a compliance report within a period of four months from today. In default of payment of fine the sentences awarded by the trial court as upheld by the appellate court, shall be restored.