JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - Five applicants i. e. the applicants Lallu Singh, Gopal, Sripal, Ramdeo and non-applicant co-accused Mohan have been convicted by the magistrate under the various sections and their appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge except that benefit of doubt under Section 324, 1. P. C. was extended to the accused because the appellate court took the view that knife injury was not established beyond doubt on the victim Kaushik Nath Singh the complainant. Co-accused Madan's conviction has already been upheld in Criminal Revision No. 1190 of 1990, his sentence was set aside and instead he was granted benefit of Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act to miintain good behaviour for a period of six months. That period is also over now because the said order is dated 26-7-1990. 2. Kaushik Nath Singh was medically examined and from the injury report proved by the compounder of the doctor it was shown that there were five injuries one of which was a multiple contusion abrasion. The said compounder Someshwar Prasad (PW 3) was not cross-examined at all on behalf of the defence. There is overwhelming evidence on the record to suggest that when the complainant had proceeded to lodge the F. I. R. it was not taken down as a result of which he preferred a complaint before the magistrate. Apart from the statement of Kaushik Nath Singh the court below has relied upon the testimony of Paramhans (PW 2). These two eye-witnesses have proved the prosecution case beyond doubt. 3. This revision was also admitted on the question of sentence only, 4. Sri B. N. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicants has placed the entire evidence before this Court and he wanted to argue, the matter on merits. After hearing him at length and examining the entire record which was summoned at the request of Sri Tiwari, there is no substance in the arguments advanced. The findings of guilt recorded by the courts below do not require any interference. 5. Coming to the question of sentence Sri Tiwari has said that since the incident is dated 27-3-1984 and nearly more than 8 years have elapsed since the date of incident, it will not be desireable to ask the applicants to go the Jail particularly because the applicants occupy responsible posts. 5. Coming to the question of sentence Sri Tiwari has said that since the incident is dated 27-3-1984 and nearly more than 8 years have elapsed since the date of incident, it will not be desireable to ask the applicants to go the Jail particularly because the applicants occupy responsible posts. He has said that if a fine is imposed in lien of the period of sentence awarded by the courts below the applicants will pay the save and it will not be treated as enhancement of sentence. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance and the inter serelationship of the accused it appears desire-able to sentence all of them to the period already undergone and cumulative fine of Rs. 300/- each to be paid within a period of three months from today. 7. The result is that the conviction of the applicants Lalloo, Sripal and Ram Deo under Sections 147 and 323/149 I. P. C. are upheld and they are Sentenced to the period under-gone and pay a total fine of Rs. 300/- each regarding Section 323/149 LP.C. within three months from today. The applicant Lalloo Singh's conviction under Sections 379 and 323/149 and 148 I. P. C. is also reduced to the period already undergone and a total fine of Rs. 300/- to be paid within three months from today. This revision consequently tells and is dismissed with the aforesaid notification in the sentences.